[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24932-25567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-220503]
MTC-00007630
From: Rodney Haas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom this may concern,
Frankly I cannot believe this lawsuit lasted this long. There is
no question that an excessive and unfair settlement will further
destroy the software business. Microsoft has been the driving force
for bringing the price of both software and hardware down. Microsoft
not only has not hurt the consumer, but has radically helped.
You only need to look @ apple as a comparison. Apple has indeed
harmed the consumer with unreasonably high prices. Apple has clearly
harmed innovation except for the chosen few. Microsoft has in fact
had open and published interfaces to their software for years. I
have used this interface many times to extend my vertical market
applications. This has allowed me to add massive power to my
applications without having to charge my clients.
In closing I would highly suggest that you focus your energy on
something else. While some of Microsoft's competitors have been
hurt, must are far to large to even qualify under the monopoly
protections. Companies like Netscape were clearly not hurt selling
for more than 4 billion dollars. Many other companies that have gone
away, have done so because of bad UI, marketing and faulty feature
sets.
Rodney Haas
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00007631
From: Beckers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ et al:
Please help stop the feeding frenzy at Microsoft and consumers'
expense. Microsoft delivers fairly sophisticated products at
reasonable prices, and do not manufacture hardware other than basic
peripherals such as keyboards. We need them creating superior
products to help balance our trade deficit. Instead, you might want
to investigate ``proprietary'' software products by companies who
really want to prevent the establishment of industry standards and
protocols.
Rick Becker
California, USA
MTC-00007632
From: Richard Paietta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:57pm
Subject: The Settlement
Dear Sirs:
This suit should have never been undertaken in the first place.
It was done by the previous administration for the benefit of
Microsoft's competition. At no time was the public hurt or at issue
in this case. This action has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars
for the benefit of a few (e.g. AOL, Sun, Etc). Not only has this
cost the American taxpayer in dollars that could have been spent
elsewhere it has cause the present downturn in our economy. DOJ was
right in settling the issue and the remaining 9 states that are home
to Microsoft's competition should be forced to settle. This was a
case of bad law and the legal system showing its worst side. There
is no excuse for the Federal Government having to act as the
protector of Microsoft's competition. The law was put on the books
for the protection of the public. The market place in a free economy
determines who stays in business and who does not. This suit has
also cost many of us who have invested in Microsoft for their
retirement. What do you intend to do to help, since this has cost
many large sums of their retirement investments. Settle the case and
ask to judge to force a resolution with the hold out states. It is
time that DOJ corrected the mistakes of the past administration.
Richard L. Paietta
[email protected]
MTC-00007633
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle with Microsoft and end this litigation. The
settlement is fair and reasonable to all parties. It will be good
for the economy. Thank you.
Marge Ferrari, 135 Westwood Drive, Novato, CA 94945
MTC-00007634
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please settle this case ASAP. I am very tired of disgruntled
companies who are not capable of competing on their own trying to
use the courts to further their position in the world of tough
competition. I thought capitalism is what made us a free enterprise
nation, and competition is what enables the best of the best to help
build this country on a world wide basis. I still do not understand
why the previous administration wanted to punish a remarkable
company like Microsoft. Let's get on with life, stop wasting
taxpayers money and let the best companies win. That's what it is
all about.
Michael D. Arndt
MTC-00007635
From: Jerome Montez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Settlement
My opinon on this case is leave private enterprizes alone the
goverment should stay out of it all they manage to do is drive up
prices for the consumer
MTC-00007636
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is appropriate and should be
enacted.
Ethel Gardner
175 e. 74 st.
New York, N.Y.
MTC-00007637
From: Marx Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to know who determined that the break up of
Microsoft would be in the consumers best interest. I would bet it
came from a disgruntled competitor like Netscape. Surely it could
not have come from the same people that thought that breaking up
AT&T was good for the consumer. I feel that to penalize Microsoft
for continuing to develop new technology is wrong. It sends a
message to others that may want to develop and market a product,
that if they get too big or too popular and the competition can no
longer provide an equal quality product for a competitive price,
that someone well sue them and try to destroy what they have done.
If I am successful, the government will take away that success.
Enough is enough! Why is it that the courts have recommended a
settlement and Microsoft has agreed to it, that their are still
those that oppose that settlement. They seem intent on destroying
Microsoft. How much do those people give back to the people
responsible for their success? How much do they give to charity? How
much? I feel that if Microsoft continues to come under assault, that
the inevitable result will be less new innovation and new technology
and higher prices to pay for it. I am sorry, but my idea of the
American Way is not to Pay more for less!
Marx Heller
Williamstown NJ
[email protected]
I VOTE!!
MTC-00007638
From: Zelia Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle now.
MTC-00007639
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:00pm
Subject: Settlement
In all of this litagation, I have never seen one consumer come
forward and actually state that the packages that Microsoft bundled
together hurt them. I for one am glad Microsoft put these programs
together on my computer. If I would have had to go out and purchase
these programs separately, I probably would not have a computer
today.
Thank You;
[email protected]
MTC-00007640
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a middle class worker, saving for retirement...with a fair
amount of Microsoft stock in my portfolio. Ever since the Reno/
Clinton ``Justice'' Department abused Microsoft through the courts,
I have had my retirement portfolio abused also. The settlement has
been accepted by DOJ and Microsoft, our nation's economy has already
[[Page 24933]]
taken enough hits, let Microsoft and the American economy serve our
interests by growth and innovation. We have gotten rid of Reno/
Clinton, now let's get rid of the droppings they afflicted us with.
END THIS NOW!!
Sincerely,
Kevin Smith
MTC-00007641
From: Robert Heffner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
I am writing to urge settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case
now. I have personally benefited enormously in my work from the
greater efficiency of Microsoft products, particularly the
standardization of the PC platform. Although I am not a lawyer, I
believe that this was a dubious case from the beginning, pushed by
Microsoft competitors who had been soundly trounced in the
marketplace.
Ending this case now, when our country is struggling to regain
economic growth, is in the best interest of our nation's
international competitive posture, and, hence, very much in the
public interest.
Thank you.
Robert H. Heffner
MTC-00007642
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to stop harrassing US business. There is no harm to
the public by completing the Microsoft settlement now. To the
contrary there is more harm to consumers and America to keep up the
battle to assist a few of the competors.
MTC-00007643
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
PLEASE settle this lawsuit with Microsoft with no further
litigation. It has gone on long enough for a company that I feel has
follwed the path that the strength of this country was built on.
They started from nothing and built it into a very successful
company. If other companies can't compete then they shouldn't be
crybabies, but find a different product or become better competitors
without running to the fed gov to solve their problems. Bill Linker
PS: this is the first time I have tried to make my voice heard but I
feel strongly enough about this to respond.
MTC-00007644
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
I urge you to proceed and complete the Microsoft settlement
during the first quarter of 2002. This long standing settlement need
to be resolved NOW. I also urge you to accept Microsoft's offer to
supply computer equipment to our school system and NOT cash. The use
of additional cash in our schools will not improve the level of
education of our children--computers will. I am suspicious of the
motives of our administrators that the cash may be used for their
own pet projects and wage increases. I don't trust the integrity of
our school administrators. Throwing $$$ at the education system will
not improved the education level of our children, it hasn't in the
past i.e., lottery etc.
Regards,
Roy Tweedie
MTC-00007645
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
microsoft never did anything wrong...in business you deserve
what you invent and earn from that invention!
MTC-00007646
From: larry novak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:03pm
Subject: Enough already, callit quits
Dear Sirs'
Enough of this wasting the tax payers money, so that a few
lawyers can make a killing of a bigger settlement. The settlement is
fair ---end it all.
Thank you
Lawrence Novak
MTC-00007647
From: Candace Hawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Atty. General Ashcroft,
I am writing to commend the DOJ in it's wise settlement with
Microsoft. I feel this needs to be wrapped up and completed and
quickly as possible for the sake of the technology sector, our
economy and Microsoft to restore the status quo. If it is at all
possible for the DOJ to intervene with the nine states still
pursuing further remedies of Microsoft that would also be supported.
Without Microsoft we would not have as a tool in every home the PC,
we never would have had the ease of use we have as well. I feel it
is a HUGE mistake to a country to go after it's crown jewel. Happy
New Year.
Sincerely,
Candace Hawthorne
Metairie, LA 70001
MTC-00007648
From: Rose Rothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:58pm
Subject: Settlement
Enough is enough. Let this case be settled now. This company has
done more for the American economy and for all us who are computer
folks. If it were not for Microsoft, we would not be where we are
now. It takes people who are innovative and visonaries to bring
forth products as Microsoft has brought to the world. Again, please
put an end to this case without damaging this inovative, visionary
company.
Rose and Dietmar Rothe
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA
[email protected]
MTC-00007649
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I firmly believe that the DOJ should put the Microsoft
litigation behind us. Microsoft has continually produced an
excellent product with each new release better than its previous
software and generally at lower prices. Microsoft has done this
while incurring substantial costs associated with litigation and
settlements. As a user I have never been forced to use Microsoft
software, I have always had available to me a multiplicity of
software to choose from and have selected support software based
upon capability and support.
I implore DOJ to let Microsoft get on with its primary business.
From a user's point of view they have never been a monopoly as
alternatives were always available to me, Microsoft was just a cause
which the Janet Reno DOJ used to keep people from asking why some
other more pertinent issues were not being investigated.
Sincerely
Dr. L. Kreuter
MTC-00007650
From: pernoid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
The Microsoft settlement reached by the Court Of Appeals should
stand & be the final end of the Microsoft litigation. This will
definitely be in the interest of consumers, the industry and the
American economy.
Glory Perno
MTC-00007651
From: Borden Nettles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please move on to productive work and get out of Microsoft
business. I have been ashamed of our government in this case because
I believe the entire lawsuit was based on political motives rather
than the law. I further believe the USDOJ action and the resulting
media coverage in this case has in part been responsible for reduced
confidence in the stock market. Thank you for recording my opinion.
I am
Borden Nettles
Franklin, TN 37067
MTC-00007652
From: Charles H Caplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let's get this over with. Approve it as it stands and let's get
on with business.
Charles H Caplan
Bellevue, WA
MTC-00007653
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
I want to applaud the Federal Government's settlement of the
Microsoft
[[Page 24934]]
case and hope that the agreement willbe accepted by the Fed and the
States. Please use this as one vote to continue on the path that has
been proposed and let Microsoft get on with business.
It is my opinion that the competitors of Microsoft have
continued stir the pot and to encourage the remaining states that
have not settled to ask for more limitations. The continued
litigation that these remaining groups are attempting is causing
confusion over Windows development for both third party developers
and users of Windows. Wasn't the example of the IBM case where
billions were wasted in trying to limit the size and power of a
wealthy Corporation enough to show that the market place will do in
time what will be done without Govt. Intervention?
It seems that this is a case of State Government attempting to
squeeze a successful Corporation for funds because the source of
their usual funding (Sales Tax) is drying up. What possible good can
the States litigation do for the consumers?
The Clinton Administration's insistence of following through
with this litigation has cost Technical stockholders a considerable
amount in share prices over the life of the litigation.
Additionally, the cost of the actual litigation has had to be a very
costly drain on Federal Govt and Microsoft's resources. It would
seem that this effort would be better spent getting bad guys rather
than chasing one of our star Corporations in the Technical world.
Now to have the States trying to squeeze more from Microsoft is only
depressing the Tech market and innovation even more.
Please curb the Antitrust Division and stop these unnecessary
probes of our successful Corporations such as IBM, Microsoft, Intel,
AOL, Cisco and AT&T. Govt. should not be creating problems for our
leading Tech Corporations that have put America in the leading
position in the Information Processing Industry.
MTC-00007654
From: Greg Sprinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Settlement--Microsoft vs USA
For the public record:
As someone intimately familiar with computing in general and the
computer industry as a whole, I have witnessed firsthand the adverse
effects of Microsoft's monopolistic business practices and their
devastating effects on consumers.
In the last year alone, the computing public has lost one of the
most promising consumer orientated desktop operating systems to come
along in the last ten years, namely BeOS. BeOS had technology that
simplified the computing experience for the average consumer, while
at the same time had technology that was vastly superior to what is
available under the Windows operating systems. The single most
reason that BeOS could not succeed in the market, is the absolute
death grip Microsoft has on OEM's and total control of the boot
loader process.
As a consumer of computer software and a concerned citizen of
the United States, I have a real problem with the proposed
settlement. I cannot see how the proposed settlement even pretends
to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been
found guilty. The proposed settlement contains no penalties--
monetarily or otherwise. None! It does not nothing to provide
further competition or halt Microsoft's continuing maintenance of
their monopoly of desktop operating systems. Perhaps the most
disturbing part of the proposed settlement is the provision for
Microsoft to determine who their competition actually is in regards
to revealing API's and source code.
While I believe the initial pursuit to break up the company was
the best course of action, I would be willing to accept the
alternatives being put forth by the nine states who have refused to
endorse the proposed settlement. To add, the barest minimum of
remedies possible should include the following features:
*Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers. [Consumers who do not wish to purchase
Microsoft products are not forced to do so].
*Prices of Microsoft products through OEM's must mirror those
same products in the retail channel so that products can compete on
merit and not price alone. [Consumers must have a choice in
competing office suite products at similar prices].
*In addition to opening the Windows application program
interface [API's], the specifications of Microsoft's present and
future document file formats must be made public, so that documents
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other
makers, on Microsoft's or other operating systems. [No consumer or
organization must choose Microsoft products based on proprietary
file formats or falsely perceived standards].
*Any and all Microsoft networking protocols must be published in
full and approved by an independent network protocol body.
Furthermore, the controlling body should be a government agency such
as the National Bureau of Standards and should apply to the industry
as a whole. [All protocols must be available through an ``open
source'' method of development with a small number of comitters to
fix bugs and plug security leaks].
*Microsoft must be made to realize that other operating systems
have the right to exist and they shall do nothing to erase any or
all entries in the master boot record. [Microsoft operating systems
shall include utility software to enable dual booting of other
operating systems when detected on computer hard drives--not just
their own].
The proposed settlement seems to have been made in haste and in
light of of the attacks of September 11th with little or no thought
for the long range implications--for the economy or national
security. Many have accused the DOJ of a ``sellout'', but my opinion
is that they are seeking a quick fix in order to revitalize economic
growth.
In a study released a year ago by the highly respected Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Microsoft's operating
systems actually poses a national security risk. Open source
advocates have made a compelling case that prove publicly available
and open programs, protocols and file formats are much more secure.
We are a nation of computers, networks and a vast dependence on
technology and as such, are a prime target for cyber terrorism
attacks of untold proportions.
I believe we, as a nation, are at a critical junction at the
cross roads of the information technology age. In many respects, we
are in the same position as that of the early days of the industrial
revolution--where we had railroads of different scales, track
widths, etc. In the case of the railroads, the problem was one of
standardization and it caused loss of productivity and timely
delivery. The computer industry desperately needs standardization in
the same way; in protocols, file formats and programs. This, I
believe, is the single most important part of this whole issue and
the fact that Microsoft's sole business plan can be summed up as
``control the standard''.
In closing, all are surely in agreement that the resolution of
this case is of great importance, not just now but for many years to
come. This suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more
important to the health of the nation than is a hasty one.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Sprinkle
3907 Lanyard Ct.
Chester, VA 23831-7379
email: [email protected]
MTC-00007655
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
sirs, this suit has been tried to death.the remaining states are
arguing for microsfts competitors in their home states not for some
imagined u.s. citizens who supposedly are being overcharged for
microsoft products.these competitors should compete with their
products against microsoft not with their lawyers.let us comlply
with the decision already in place and get out on with moving
business ahead.
sincerely,
george o. mills
lavallette,nj 08735
MTC-00007656
From: James Rhodes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Selltlement
It is my firm belief that any more litigation against Microsoft
would once more plunge the tec. markets into another freefall just
as two years ago when weak insecure corporations turned to the
Clinton justice department for help. If the government wants to
bring on another down cycle, just keep pounding away at the one
company that truly
[[Page 24935]]
knows how to innovate and develop solutions to complex problems. Why
is it that people who know how to get things done are always being
attacked by those who can't? The more I see the law being applied in
this country, the less respect I have for it. Lawyers, journalists,
politicians--they build nothing yet suck the life out of everything.
MTC-00007657
From: Paul Monson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I have been a computer user for many years. I owned one of the
first IBM-PC produced and have continually upgraded. I remember the
days when competing Operating Systems were available and I am glad
those days are gone. It was a nightmare having software that would
work under one operating system but not another. I know monopolies
in general are undesirable but in the case of computer operating
systems they are much better than the alternative. I also do not
have any problem with ``bundling'' of the internet browser. For many
years I used Netscape as my preferred browser even when Internet
Explorer was the default browser installed with the Microsoft
operating system. I have now switched to Internet Explorer simply
because it is now better than Netscape, but I would still be running
Netscape if it were superior.
I think it is time to lay-off of Microsoft, I believe that most
people feel as I do that in general we are much better off with
Microsoft as is rather that broken-up or otherwise handicapped. I
have found that most Microsoft products are superior to competing
products> Why can the public not be able to use such superior
products.
I am not a Microsoft employee but a individual public citizen.
Paul Monson
MTC-00007658
From: Michael Beers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello, my name is Michael Beers. I'm a hard-working friendly
American male. I'll make it short. Settle the Microsoft case now. It
is unfortunate in this country that success, when deemed
``excessive,'' is so despised that we have to attempt to destroy it,
to make it small again, to make it average. Pay no attention to the
2 billion dollars Mr. Gates gave to charity this year, to the
stimulus his company provides our economy, and to the fact that my
computer running his software is one of the most important objects
in my life. Leave Microsoft alone! Leave business alone! Let the
market decide whose products to buy.
Keep your creepy, altruistic hands off.
Thank you. Did I make my point clear?
Michael Beers
Michael Beers
michaelbeers.com
[email protected]
785-749-3649
MTC-00007659
From: CHARLES E KESSLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
My family nor I have never worked for or had any connection to
the Microsoft Co. and I do not own any Microsoft stock. My only
connection is that I have a personal computer that uses Microsoft
software.
It has always been my opinion that to penalize Microsoft for
improving its software for the benefit of its customers is crazy.
The freedom to innovate and provide better software should be
rewarded not penalized.
The only reason for these lawsuits is to benefit the attorneys
and the politicians who support Microsoft's competitors.
Charles E. Kessler
3000 S. Graham St.
Seattle, WA 98108
206-725-3279
MTC-00007660
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
Dear Sirs:
Please end this action and lets move on!
L.C. Foster
Tampa Fl.
MTC-00007661
From: Rick Salvo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I really don't understand why the Government is trying to
destroy one of the world's best achievements. You can buy a
Microsoft product that is reliable and utilitarian for less than
what most attorneys charge for 2 hours of their time. Where is the
injustice here? Their products will last a lifetime (even though
they will be improved upon constantly). This whole thing is a big
waste of time and money. Just look at what breaking up the phone
company did. We now pay about 5 times as much for less service and
have 2 to 3 bills for what once came in one every month! Even if
some companies are considered monopolies maybe that is the most
efficient way to do some things. Leave Microsoft alone and see if
all the lawyers involved can add some utility to the world in stead
of profits in their pockets. Settle the suit and let's get on with
life and look for things that need fixing.
Sincerely
Rick Salvo
MTC-00007662
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:16pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
I am voting for the settlement as outlined.
MTC-00007663
From: Ruth A. Lucchesi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
I fear that Microsoft will emerge from the Justice Department
and and State anti-trust lawsuits with little or no penalty.
Microsoft's offer to spend money to equip schools with their
brand of software is certainly not a penalty for them...it is
advertising cost. If they are permitted such an easy fate, all of
the creative alternatives to the WINTEL platform will be effectively
crushed. The Apple operating systems long used by schools will be
drowned by the onslaught of Microsoft technology.
Monopoly power in Microsoft's hands is no different than it was
in the hands of Rockefeller and Standard Oil nor Ma Bell. Absolute
power (monopoly) corrupts absolutely.
Please consider the fate of other creative methods for computing
and insist on a penalty for Microsoft that will break their
monopoly. The company should be split into at least two separate and
competing companies...one for software and one for an operating
system. Judge Green's decision to split Ma Bell made possible the
many innovations we have in telecommunications today: cell phones,
pagers, portable phones etc. The next generation deserves the same
opportunity to have similar computing technology at their disposal.
Please split up Microsoft.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Ruth A. Lucchesi
127 Riverside Drive
Northfield, IL 60093-3238
MTC-00007664
From: 4glh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I just wanted to voice my support of the Microsoft settlement. I
do believe that they were unfairly targeted by the government in the
first place, but since they agreed to this settlement it should be
honored! Then the whiners and complainers form both the other
software companies and the Government (who really deserve none of
Microsoft's money.. they already pay their taxes) should get out of
it and leave them alone. Hopefully they can still succeed even after
their unfair and I believe unlawful persecution.
Let their settlement stand.
GL Holmlund
MTC-00007665
From: cliff bristow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is in reference to the Microsoft Settlement...I am sick and
tired of the mess that special interest groups are creating and feel
that the government could best serve the people of this great nation
by dropping everything. Microsoft has consistently given me all that
I have paid for and so much that I didn't pay for. If I need an
update for a Microsoft product that I use, they have always given me
that update at no charge. Yes, they do charge me if I want to
upgrade (like to Windows XP), but, it is my choice whether to
upgrade or not. Microsoft is not forcing me to do something that I
do not want to do and I for one am tired of people trying to tell me
they are. I am a strong supporter for Microsoft and believe that
they are serving all of my needs.
[[Page 24936]]
Sincerely,
Cliff Bristow
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.
Cliff
MTC-00007666
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone. Just close out the settlement you already
reached with Microsoft and move on. Microsoft is one of the world's
greatest companies that has done more for benefiting mankind than
almost any other company in the past 10 years. The whole technology
revolution of the 1990's would never have happened without
Microsoft. Microsoft bashers are just jealous of Bill Gate's
success.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00007667
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please finally settle this case as per the terms negotiated by
Microsoft and the DOJ and allow Microsoft to get back to work
writing software and stimulating the economy rather than remaining
an unending source of income for the plaintiff's bar. It's enough,
get rid of this case. You are not there to defend Microsoft's
competitors from competion.
Harvey W. Topilow, MD
MTC-00007668
From: John Petrocci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think that the courts intrusion in the way a corporation
manages it business is unwarranted. It became evident the courts
were favoring the competitors. I liked the settlement. There are
many other companies that could be prosecuted if judged in the same
manner that Microsoft was scrutinized.
MTC-00007669
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the settlement as I fully support Microsoft's
freedom to innovate.
William K. Topper
968 E. 125 S.
Ogden, Utah 84404-4006
[email protected]
MTC-00007670
From: Alan Hagerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:26pm
Subject: My opposition to the DOJ Suit vs. Microsoft
Gentlemen....While I am by no means an expert, I do believe that
Microsoft was not and is not now, a monopoly. I believe that
companies who were competitors of Microsoft, got the government to
take the lead to bring Microsoft down or at least, break it up.
I did obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree from Miami Univ, Oxford ,
Ohio and a CPCU Degree From the Insurance Institute. My major in
college was economics. I feel that a great deal of Taxpayer money
has been wasted and that the devastation of the stock holdings of
Americans (particularly in the computer field) has been great. I am
pleased that the US Govt Doj program is ending and I feel that the
states who are still holding out should cease and desist their
actions too.
I am a retiree, recently retired from the General Insurance
business. I have never missed an opportunity to vote and I chair the
Conservative Party of Ontario County, New York. Thank you for
requesting my opinion.
Sincerely,
Alan Hagerman, Chairman
MTC-00007671
From: Paul Graeber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy. The law (officially called the Tunney Act)
requires a public comment period between now and January 28th after
which the District Court will determine whether the settlement is in
the ``public interest.''
Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
Paul Graeber
Paul and Sherri
[email protected]
MTC-00007672
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:27pm
Subject: RE; microsoft settlement
I HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS AND I
FIRMLY BELIEVE IT HAS FINALLY COME TO A SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
CONCLUSION. I REFER TO THE LONG AT&T CASE WHICH TOOK MANY YEARS AND
RESULTED IN A HUGE EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND SUBSTANTIALLY
INCREASED TELEPHONE USAGE COSTS TO THE CONSUMER. WHAT MAKES IT EVEN
MORE LUDICROUS IS THAT THE SPLIT COMPANIES HAVE MANAGED TO ALLY
THEMSELVES WITH EACH OTHER. THOSE WHO DESIRE TO EXTEND THE
CONTROVERSY ARE DOING IT FOR SELFISH PERSONAL GAIN. LET US AVOID
ANOTHER AT&T DEBACLE.
VERY TRULY YOURS----
DAVID KAUFMAN
MTC-00007673
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Enough is enough, time for settling this matter once and for
all. Put a stop to these delays so that MS can get back to business.
They have provided a service for us consumers that has been
extremely important in the advancement of computer science. So many
Americans can now and do, have computers in their homes. I believe
without MS this would not have happened.
Why do we want to punish a company that brought USA to the top
of this industry?
Kathleen Laitila
MTC-00007674
From: Erol Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:29pm
Subject: please complete the settlement
We've used up enough taxpayer money (my money) to punish the one
company that has done more for consumers and computing than any
other. Let's put an end to the ``don't innovate, litigate'' credo of
the lesser companies. If they'd higher great engineers to make great
products, and get out of the courts, maybe they could compete.
As a registered voter, I'm adding my vote to complete the
settlement and get America moving again towards innovation!
MTC-00007675
From: Patty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe the settlement reached in the Microsoft case is fair.
Please make it final and let Microsoft and the American public get
on with life.
Thank you.
P. Lea
MTC-00007676
From: Jimmy.Chan@Dictaphone.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I am writing this reguarding to the Microsoft Settlement Case as
a consumer, my point of view is the case has been prolong enough. It
is bad for the economy, derail innovation for new technology.
Majorily of the public are aware they do have a choice to choose
from all vendors of software makers and they are more acknowlegeable
reguarding what they buy from a decade ago. Also, technology has
been advanced so fast, even the laws can't keep up and I understand
you want to protect the consumers.
So, let us decide what's best for the consumers and ends all
litigation asap when there is a fair settlement presented on the
table for all parties already. And get the economy moving on all
cylinders again. Thanks for letting me voice my point of view. Good
Luck!
[[Page 24937]]
Jimmy
MTC-00007677
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Come on, lets get this show on the road and finalized. We have
wasted far too much time and money for no real purpose. Let's step
up to the plate and get it finalized. Microsoft is being more than
fair--enought already. Make it happen.
Thanks for your consideration.
Paul E. Monson
MTC-00007678
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom this may concern, The settlement accepted by Microsoft
should be accepted by the Court and Microsoft should be afforded
quiet enjoyment to innovate and pursue its business.
The entire case against Microsoft is study of abuse of
government power against the private sector--Microsoft drove our
high tech economy and dramatically increased productivity in
America. We owe the success of the 90's to the catalyst
``Microsoft''. Bill Gates and his team are the new American heroes
of our capitalist system, Microsoft brought low priced products to
the service of all. Microsoft succeeded against all competitors
world wide--they won the Olympic Gold of Business for America and
the American government tried to punished them due to complaints
from inefficient high price competitors with friends in Congress.
It is time to end this tragic mistaken case and move on. In
addition to settlement the Federal government and especially the
States should apologize to Microsoft and its shareholders.
God Bless a Free America
Carl A. Merz
President
Hartford Aviation Group, Inc.
MTC-00007679
From: Richard Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement --- Richard Lewis ---
[email protected] --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real
Internet.
I believe the Microsoft settlement was good and fair and that it
should not be overturned by special interests. Litigation is a sorry
method of resolving problems, especially since consumers have not
suffered from Microsoft's actions.
Richard F. Lewis
22 Tollridge Ct.
San Mateo, CA 94402
MTC-00007680
From: John Buttel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First of all I do not own any Microsoft stock at this time and
am not now nor will I ever be employed by Microsoft. I do use the
products created by the company and have never had a complaint or
felt that I my choices were being limited in any way by monopolistic
practices. Prices for Microsoft products are fair to me the consumer
and services have been more than satisfactory. I have felt from the
beginning of the legal action that my government was suing a company
on behalf of other competing companies that could not do it on their
own. I am not anything more than a casual computer user that has
never found a time or place where I had to use a Microsoft product
when I did not want to. Just because they were able to come up with
the dominant operating system for the personal computer in the right
place and the right time they should not be punished continually for
it. Please let the market place decide what it wants and stop
wasting my tax dollars on litigation against Microsoft. In the Bible
God tells us not to sue one another.
Thank you, my name is John ([email protected])
MTC-00007681
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:34pm
Subject: settlement
I think the proposal to have Microsoft donate software to
schools is excellent. Please lets get this terrible burden to our
economy over with and settle this case. Sun, oracle and there states
will never settle so please make them.
Tim Carey, MD
MTC-00007682
From: Purdue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dept of Justice:
Please settle this case as soon as possible. I do not think that
delaying the settlement will solve anything further. Personally, I
see the nine states that are in a quandary as inhibiting and not
expediting legal or just settlement of this case by any further
prolongment.
Barbara Purdue
Citizen USA
MTC-00007683
From: charles bolton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:39pm
Subject: The action currently being pursued against Microsoft
creates a Business
The action currently being pursued against Microsoft creates a
Business climate of uncertainty that prevents them from continuing
to innovate and develop new technology that will provide business
opportunities and create additional jobs, investment opportunities
and other revenue streams. Microsoft has been punished enough by
this long drawn out court action, delays, missed opportunities and
legal costs. Implement the settlement as decided by the Courts.
Continuing to re-open the case on hearsay and speculation is a
violation of the equal protection of the laws of the US Constitution
and probably a violation of due process.
In these un-settled economic and chaotic world climate we need
stability and a level playing field to allow us technology to stay
in the lead. Do you think the Chinese and all the other techno
wantabees are tying the hands of their premier technology companies.
No! Keep it up and you will erode our global technological edge.
There are winners and losers in the market place all the time. I
saw my company that had a good product and technology go down the
tubes due to the dot.com melt down and we were not a dot.com
company. So encourage competition and let people innovate and
computer and stop listening to the cry babies.
Cordially
Charles Bolton
[email protected]
MTC-00007684
From: scott juetten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:31pm
Subject: MS Antitrust case that never ends!
To Whom it may Concern,
I strongly support the proposed settlement between the Justice
Department and Microsoft. The settlement more than addresses the
concerns brought up at the trial without unduly harming a company
that has perhaps done more for the US Economy than any other. This
settlement will allow Microsoft to keep innovating, while being
sensitive to the needs of competitors and computer makers.
The dissenting states proposed alterations to the settlement are
punitive in nature, and are primarily designed to help Microsoft
competitors at the expense of Microsoft and Microsoft shareholders.
They are designed to prevent Microsoft from innovating, and to make
Microsoft hand over intellectual property to competitors. Microsoft
has shown signs it is very determined to comply with the settlement,
by internally appointing compliance officers. Therefore, I believe
the states concerns are unfounded.
It is my opinion that if the settlement is approved, and this
case is finally closed, that it will help to eliminate uncertainty
in the tech sector of the equity markets. This can also help to spur
economic recovery. Therefore, I do not feel it is in the best
interest of consumers or the country to drag this on further.
Please accept the settlement of United States vs. Microsoft as
submitted by the US Justice Department.
Respectfully,
Scott & Rochelle Juetten
MTC-00007685
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is respectfully submitted that the Microsoft litigation at
bar represents a politically motivated abuse of the American
judicial system. The conclusions and findings of the Court appear to
be an overly simplistic, almost academic, approach that bears little
relevancy to the real world of average consumers such as myself.
It is at best absurd that absolutely no consideration appears to
have been given to
[[Page 24938]]
the fact that the explosion of the internet is almost exclusively
the result of Microsoft's bundling which effectively gave consumers
``all'' they needed to permit them to wander through the internet.
I'd call it one stop shopping-a convenience-not a punishment.
It is equally absurd that no consideration has been given the
issue of whether any of the ``competitors'' who were ``excluded''
actually offered products that were truly innovative and competitive
with Microsoft's products.
Finally, the penultimate absurdity of the litigation is the lack
of any proof that consumers would have benefited financially or
otherwise had circumstances been as the Court believed they should
have been.
If Microsoft is willing to accept the proposed settlement, it
should be approved. The Court and the State Attorneys should not do
any further harm.
Respectfully yours,
William J. Breuer
22 Nassau Blvd
Garden City, N.Y.
MTC-00007686
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
I have been concerned about the Department of Justice lawsuit
against Microsoft. I began using Microsoft products in 1981 when I
bought my first IBM microcomputer. Nothing in my lifetime has
increased my productivity and work enjoyment as much as the
microcomputer and Microsoft software. Their creativity and
entrepreneurship helped millions of other people and me. I have
worked at four universities and most recently as Vice President for
Finance and Administration at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville. I recently retired but was thinking back to 1981 when I
bought six microcomputers and established three residence hall
computer labs at Central Michigan University. I think these were the
very first residence hall computer labs in the country. Many
students benefited from those labs and the Microsoft software we
used. From that early beginning I certainly could not have predicted
the full impact of either the software or the microcomputer. I have
been forever grateful to Bill Gates and all the Microsoft people for
providing such productivity enhancements. I am happy to hear that
Attorney General John Ashcroft has ended the Department of Justice's
three-year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a settlement. I
wholeheartedly agree with the Attorney General's decision to get it
over with.
The complex agreement is full of provisions that will
permanently change the software industry and I personally do not see
a one that I would consider positive. Everything about the agreement
seems to me to be aimed at reducing creative endeavor. The
government even created an ongoing technical oversight committee to
review Microsoft software codes, and to test Microsoft compliance to
the agreement. Nevertheless, I am glad it is over. What disturbs me
is that some government officials and Microsoft competitors aren't
satisfied with the decision and want tighter screws on Microsoft. I
ask, ``How far should the government go on these issues? Free
enterprise needs a break!'' My hope is that Microsoft will produce
even better software in the future that will help all of us. I am
doing some consulting now and my son is a software developer who
uses all of Microsoft's development software. I don't want to see
anything standing in the way of improved software.
Our tax money should be used to deal with the urgent matters of
the day. In my opinion, the federal government doesn't need to take
any more action on this issue. Please end the Microsoft lawsuit
permanently.
MTC-00007687
From: Barbara Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to settle this mess, for the good of all. Why prolong
it any longer. Prolonging the settlement hurts the economy and
really hurts everyone. Those that don't want to settle are the ones
that are really greedy. Let's get it over with.
MTC-00007688
From: Jim Gasparich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
As an avid computer user I feel strongly that the settlement
arrived at between Microsoft and the DOJ was fair and in the best
interest of consumers like myself. Further litigation is a waste of
taxpayer money and will not help consumers but rather competitors
and the political careers of ambitious AG's. Please do the world a
favor and end this.
Sincerely,
James P Gasparich, M.D.
MTC-00007689
From: Wendall Mayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DoJ,
Please, it is time for this issue to be put to rest. The entire
case revolves around the fact that Microsoft's competitors do not
have the will or desire to get out and work hard to develop the
technology to compete with Microsoft. They would rather cry and go
running to the government. Why not, it is easier and cheaper for
them. Microsoft pumps millions of dollars into the US economy. They
have for many years and they can for many more if everyone will just
leave them alone. In addition, Microsoft develops technology that
not only makes the US stronger, but also makes it easier for the
average consumer to do what they want to with their personal
computer. In addition, Microsoft delivers this technology at a
tremendous value.
Thank you!
MTC-00007690
From: SamuelWines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that enough resources have been expended to date and
that it is time to move ahead. Microsoft is not perfect and
certainly should be monitored but is it not time to move to more
pressing issues?
Sam Wines
MTC-00007691
From: Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:48pm
Subject: MS Settlement
I think the Clinton Administration made a terrible mistake in
using the Dept of Justice in trying to break-up Microsoft. MS is the
with the recourses and talent to compete with foreign governments in
the development of new and sophisticated software. The remaining
states have no case and there has no damage to them, therefore, they
should give up there in pursuit of MS.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter--
Perry Du Long
MTC-00007692
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This has gone on way too long now. PLEASE settle this ridiculous
case and lets move on. Microsoft is an incredible company and I
can't believe I live in a country that penalizes it's citizen's for
being innovative and successful. Its disgraceful the way our
government has treated our own company that we should be proud of. I
used to live in Mexico and down there the people couldn't believe
what the USA was doing. It was really embarrassing to try and
explain it.
SETTLE THE CASE!
MTC-00007693
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
A reasonable and fair settlement has been reached. Lets stop
seeking to damage the future of one of the few remaining American
companies that is truly a leader in global business and quickly
ratify the settlement.
K. Cadematori 1/2/02
MTC-00007694
From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ--
Come on guys...it's settled. Let's get on with getting on. If
this case is continued, you are starting to look foolish. Any
further consideration by DOJ against Microsoft will further show how
a few individuals in your department has a personal vendetta against
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
Let American Capitalism and Democracy work....get out of the
way.
Jim Renfrow
2400 Columbine Lane
Montrose, CO 81401-5646
[email protected]
(970)-249-6511
[[Page 24939]]
PS. I'm a 56 year old who has been a registered Democrat all my
life and have never voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate.
MTC-00007695
From: Matias Moyano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:49pm
Subject: hello
i want to say, that i dont like the settlement that the DOJ has
reached with microsoft, this is not helping the consumers, and of
course, not helping the economy at all, microsoft allways had the
winner track on all these computer business, i think that we are
loosing the economy on the computer market with this settlement, the
9 of the 18 states started this because microsoft's MONOPOLIC
tactics, they started this because the POWER AND THE MONEY that
microsoft have win in this computer market is not ALLOWING other
little companys to start or to reach a good market, because
MICRO$OFT can buy the competitor... or add a ``new free feature'' to
the next os, and the competitor will be down and dead, and microsoft
will not spend more money again, this is not helping the AMERICAN
ECONOMY, this is helping MICRO$OFT ECONOMY, i was wondering why? i
can travel to USA proof that im good for the USA economy and the
American Gov. will loan me money to start, so i can grow as a
business in the USA, a country that i love, and i will like to live
on, but what happens here? with this settlement the only thing that
you, DOJ, 9 states of the 18 states are doing is destroying the
chance of people like me or any other little company that wants to
start something in the computer market, why should i do it? if i
will loose against microsoft in one way or another? this settlement
is not protecting the AMERICAN ECONOMY and that is the big
mistake...
because in the way this is handle, 5 years of restricted stuff
for microsoft? what is that? microsoft agreed in other settlement to
pay 10 billons, that shows to you how much they care of that 5
years, in the 6th year they can recover all the money they loose,
please, dont give them the chance to destroy the american economy,
this cant be tolerated!!!! the american economy is not moved by
microsoft, is moved by hundres or 1000! of people that wants to
start something or a business in that great country! but in the way
this is going, microsoft will be able to do whatever they want, that
is bad!! very bad!
microsoft can loose 10 billons of dollars but they know that
they can recover it once again when the 6th year is reached! or by
going back to their tactics! the split of the company was the best
to do!!! but if you cant make them do that then go for the proposed
by the 9 REBEL STATES the open of the code of IE and other things
they had in mind please! do it for ALL THE ECONOMY, not just
MICRO$OFT ECONOMY this move, and the tactics that microsoft allways
used is destroying the little and medium companys arround, and in
some years, you will have nothing, and who can we blame about that?
MTC-00007696
From: Bob Windom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:49pm
Subject: My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I am a
county commissioner as well.
We fully beli My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I
am a county commissioner as well. We fully believe that the
Microsoft settlement is just and fair. It serves us well as
consumers both in private life, the small business sector, and local
government. We, therefore, encourage you to move forward with the
settlement.
Robert and Rita Windom
303 Voves Ave.
Libby, MT 59923
406-293-6764
MTC-00007697
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice, I am in favor of the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft case. It is time to get this settled so the economy
can move forward and recover. Thank you.
James H. Baker
MTC-00007698
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/2/02
In the interest of the public, I would like an agreement on the
current settlement. A few sour grapes would like to prolong this for
there own interest, in the long run this is going to cost us all
money and won't accomplish anything. Not all Microsoft products are
perfect, but they are generally better than whatever else is around!
Sincerely,
Robb McCullough
MTC-00007699
From: Leslie Veres
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement and see no reason to
prolong this case one minute longer than necessary. Please complete
the settlement process and apply the Department of Justice resources
to more important needs.
Thank you very much.
Leslie L. Veres
MTC-00007700
From: Ann Whalen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is time to settle this case. I am a taxpayer and have paid
for this case to go on and on. As a consumer, I have enjoyed an
operating system that is innovative, creative and an American
product. Let's spend time, money and energy on ``fighting'' cases
that negatively affect the American public.
Thanks, Ann Whalen
MTC-00007701
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs or Madams:
I sincerely hope that the Microsoft Settlement, otherwise known
as the Tunney Act, would be implemented as soon as possible. Any
other course would constitute yet another blow to our struggling
economy.
Sincerely,
C. Lawrence Roberts, M.D.
23720 S.E. 18th St.
Sammamish, Washington 98075-8109
MTC-00007702
From: David Hemler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice is in the best interests of the country and
consumers. I fully support the settlement and hope that you will
enforce its terms.
David Hemler
MTC-00007703
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:56pm
Subject: (no subject)
Please settle the case as soon as possible w/o hurting economy
and citizen of this country.
MTC-00007704
From: kearypk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I have been asked to comment on the settlement. I think that ANY
settlement hurts both the consumer and our country's economy and
ability to compete worldwide. However, I agree that this settlement
is better that any more litigation and therefore agree with it
Keary Kunz
210 Jennings
Wenatchee, WA 98801
MTC-00007705
From: Scott Cuddihy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this whole effort is a shame. Large scale damage has
been done to our economy by the USDOJ in the name of anti-trust. The
consumer has not been harmed by Microsoft, the consumer enjoys more
value for its money than any other time in history. This action only
benefits AOL-Time Warner, Sun Microsystems and Oracle to name a few.
Please end this tragedy.
Thank you,
Scott Cuddihy
MTC-00007706
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
TO whom it may concern:
As a consumer, I wish to voice my strong opinion that you settle
this case with Microsoft as it is now. The Tunney act is fair and
needs to be implemented without any further delay. To delay is to
prolong the
[[Page 24940]]
stifling effect on development. Do what is right and settle now.
Timothy Messmer
Anacortes, WA
MTC-00007707
From: marvin thurmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:00am
Subject: microsoft settlement
To: us doj
To whom it may concern: Please settle the Microsoft case without
further litigation. I believe this to be in the interest of the
people.
Thanks
marvin c. thurmond
44 camden way
dallas,ga. 30157
MTC-00007708
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wrote a letter to Microsoft some time ago supporting them in
the legal actions. They provided me with this address to continue to
show my support...I agree that the settlement seems to be in the
consumer's best interests, and I would like the litagatin to cease.
Anne Hazelton MD
MTC-00007709
From: Ronald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I Agree with California an the other eight states, that
Microsoft is the one stalling. I agree with California and the other
eight states. Microsoft should split into two or three corporations.
They are a bullies.
Ron Bush
End User
Ronald J. Bush
[email protected]
MTC-00007710
From: SUE BONK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:04am
Subject: Dept. of Justice Put a sock in it! Settle this NOW!
MTC-00007711
From: Jasha Levi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is high time to let Microsoft be and let their competitors
compete in the marketplace instead of trying to have the courts do
it for them.
Jasha Levi
MTC-00007713
From: David P. Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:05am
Subject: comments on DOJ v. Microsoft
Gentlemen,
I am a professional computer software developer, and I've been
working with and around computers for as long as Bill Gates (we're a
year apart in age). While I have not read the proposed settlement in
detail, I have read many accounts in the technical press that seem
to be in fair agreement, and I thought I'd register my comments. In
a nutshell, I think the proposed settlement is off-point and will
have virtually no impact in the market place or to any useful extent
with either consumers or end users. It's an attempt to compensate
for market forces that were in effect several years ago and that
might not be relevant today.
For what it's worth, here's my opinion.
I agree that Microsoft has created a monopoly. The issue before
the courts was focused on products and product bundling; however,
this is not the culprit. The monopoly that Microsoft has so
effectively created really lies in a distribution channel that
reaches over 90% of all computer users in the North American
hemisphere, and probably a majority of ALL users worldwide. The
problem with that sort of monopoly is that the monopoly holder has
the absolute right to say what goes into that channel. It's not that
the products Microsoft chooses to bundle are good, bad, or
indifferent. The problem is that the consumer is LOCKED OUT from
EVER GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE ANY ALTERNATIVES!
Consider this: what if. . . 90% of telephone service was
provided by Qwest? 90% of all grocery stores food distributors were
owned by Safeway? 90% of all gasoline pipelines were owned by Mobil
Oil? . . . And, the owners were also the produces of 100% of the
products that were stocked and sold to their customers--meaning that
all the services accessible by telephone (eg., long distance, voice
mail, internet access, etc) were ALSO owned by Qwest; that 100% of
the products found in a Safeway store were exclusively their in-
house private label brands; that all the gasoline and oil available
through Mobil gas stations was produced and owned by Mobil Oil. It's
kind of scary to think about, isn't it? You'd go to the grocery
store looking for Quaker Brand Oatmeal, and you have to settle with
some gloppy in-house brand because . . . the price of the Quaker
Oats product would be twice the cost of the in-house brand because
the ``house'' would take a few tens of million dollars for the
privledge of ``bundling'' it with their other products. (Look what
they wanted to charge AOL just to advertise their internet service
in Windows XP!) What other company, distributor, news source,
publisher, government, or ANYBODY exists ANYWHERE that has that kind
of market penetration AND CONTROL? I cannot think of a single one,
other than possibly the US Post Office!
What is the impact on me as a software developer? Well, it's
rather difficult for me to gain access to this distribution channel.
In fact, it's practically impossible. AOL couldn't get into the XP
distribution without practically selling their soul; what chance
does a smaller company have? Z-E-R-O. That's the primary impact of
this monopoly--when somebody buys a Compaq or Dell computer, the
only products they get exposure to are from Microsoft (and a few
other Fortune 50 companies that can afford the advertising costs).
And that's mainly because of contracts between Microsoft and the OEM
manufacturers. Even if those contract terms are relaxed a bit,
there's no way that smaller vendors are going to get to bundle their
multimedia players and text editors with those systems!
The first automobiles were available in ``any color you want, as
long as it's black''. That's ok when you're talking about a product
market place with a few thousand or tens of thousands of customers.
But today tens of millions of computers are sold each year.
Nonetheless, as in Ford's time, consumers can get them outfitted
with ``any operating system you like, as long as it's from
Microsoft''. That's NOT a choice!
One measure of the settlement should be this: how do consumers
choices change as a result? Frankly, I fail to see how this
situation will possibly change given the proposed remedies. Assuming
the proposed settlement goes through, in a year or three, will the
average consumer have any more choices to him as to what software
gets bundled and/or installed on his computer? I really don't see
how.
AT&T was broken into several smaller pieces in order to separate
the local phone access from the long-distance networks. Now the so-
called Baby Bells want to get back into long distance markets, and
AT&T wants to get back into local access markets. What solution has
been put into place? Local carriers can get into long distance when
they've opened their local markets to some percentage of competing
carriers, and AT&T can get into local markets when it can
demonstrate that its opened it's markets to some percentage of
competing carriers. That makes sense. The practical impact of that
hasn't been very effective in the market place, but at least it's a
start.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE:
As part of the settlement agreement, Microsoft should be
required to include installation-time access to third-party products
with every release of their software. The qualifications should be
that anybody can submit anything as long as it meets certain clearly
defined and easily measured criteria. That means that if AOL thinks
that users might want to get access to AOL at the time they install
Windows XP, the only option Microsoft has is to say ``send us a link
to your web site''.
One thing I believe is that Microsoft will claim that virtually
ANYTHING is an ``integral part'' of the operating system if it suits
their fancy. Rather than argue about it, I'd say ``the proof is in
the pudding''. If Microsoft is including something in the release of
one of their products, then they should allow third parties to
submit similar products as well. In other words, if they want to
claim that an Internet Browser is part of the OS, then they cannot
say that other Browsers should not be include. Conversely, if
somebody wants to bundle a word processor and Microsoft says that's
not part of the OS, then they can refuse to include it. However, if
someone wants to bundle something roughly equivalent to Notepad or
Wordpad, which are acknowledged parts of the standard Windows
operating environment, then Microsoft could not deny them trying to
say that they compete with Word instead.
In order to facilitate this, I'd suggest the establishment of a
web site that is used to
[[Page 24941]]
promote third-party products that compete with things that Microsoft
bundles directly in their products, and require Microsoft to modify
their installer so that it connects to this web site at installation
time and allows users to select among different tools available on
the web site at that time. Some folks might not want to load the
Windows Media Player, and might choose to install the WinAmp Media
Player instead. Why not? Or, they could choose to load Netscape
rather than Internet Explorer as their browser. If Microsoft wants
to play games with the API so competitors' products don't work well,
then play the same game as the phone companies--they can update
their browser as soon as at least one other browser has been tested
to be ``compatible'' with the operating system. Put the onus on
Microsoft to provide CLEAR CRITERIA to facilitate successful
compatibility testing.
I'd also like to see something in the remedy that addresses the
abysmal level of support that's currently available for Microsoft's
products, primarily their 0EM products. Microsoft says that part of
the reason they discount the licenses sold to OEMs is because their
contracts require the OEMs to provide support. However, most don't
provide any useful level of support, typically pushing it off on
their retailers. Very few retailers ever hire the expertise needed
to support Microsoft's products well. This is relevant to the
monopolistic practices issue because it gives Microsoft a way to
dis-own support needs for a very large percentage of its customers.
If Microsoft was required to provide even a minimal level of support
for their products, they would have to raise their OEM prices enough
that the OEMs would in fact be in a position to make a viable choice
among different bundling options. Today the OEMs are simply
prostitutes for Microsoft products that they bundle with their
hardware simply because nobody else can afford to offer them better
deals. OEMs cannot afford to support the software that they bundle
with their computers, and there's a tacit agreement that retailers
and ``certified technicians'' will take up the slack. The truth is,
they don't. But Microsoft gets the benefit of the doubt and is
allowed to continue underpricing their products to OEMs using this
fraudulant strategy. I think that requiring Microsoft to publish a
single, uniform, OEM Price List that only offers volume purchase
discounts and that imposes certain specific support requirements
would go a long way towards solving this problem. (For example, an
OEM can get an additional discount by providing the 800# for their
phone support help desk. No support desk, no discount. Conversely,
Microsoft would be required to provide the support for those OEMs,
hence justifying the higher OEM price.)
Finally, I like the option that several of the States have
proposed that forces Microsoft to publish the source code for the
core Windows operating system and utilities and require them to
license it more openly. This would allow third-parties and even OEMs
to use it to compose different configurations, much the way that
Linux distributions are really different compositions of mostly the
same code bases. It would eliminate most of the issues that have
been keeping the OEMs hamstrung in their abilities to modify the
boot-up processes of their machines, or shipping alternative
browsers. It would also have a beneficial side-effect in that the
OEMs would REALLY be required to support their products!
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
David Schwartz
P.O. Box 34338
Phoenix, AZ 85067
MTC-00007714
From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:06am
Subject: what I think
waste of taxpayers money over nothing!!!!! I stand with
Microsoft on this matter!!!!!!!
Rich Tackett
19811 Portal Plaza
Cupertino, Calif. 95014
408 253-7810
MTC-00007715
From: Carl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs
I have been around the computer industry for 40 years and the
one thing that stands out in the early days of the computer is that
no companies were compatible with software or hardware. Now that one
company got it all together and you can buy any hardware or software
and be assured that it will run, the Government wants to shut this
company down and change the whole industry and set it back to 1970.
Microsoft has done it right and the only the disgruntled companies
that can not compete want the Government to penalize Microsoft for
being successful.
There are a lot of small business that rely on Microsoft and
Windows to be the same always. If you do not know how important this
is then you must be talking to lawyers and not Computer Developers
and Users that were there when using a Computer was not this easy.
Carl Odiam
760 343 3759
MTC-00007716
From: helen bloomquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
I am in favor of the comprehensive agreement with Microsoft, and
vote that the case be settled immediately, without further
litigation.
Helen Bloomquist
MTC-00007717
From: Kurt A. Buechler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
As a consumer, I am in support of the settlement of the DOJ
lawsuit vs. Microsoft now on the table. In my opinion, the
settlement is fair and should be enacted ASAP to assist the nation's
economic recovery. I own no shares of Microsoft stock and share this
opinion as a user of products and services of Apple, America Online,
and Microsoft corporations. I am neither an employee nor beneficiary
of Microsoft Corp.
Sincerely,
Kurt A. Buechler
127 Claiborne Cove
Ridgeland, MS 39157
U.S.A.
(601) 853-3638
Kurt A. Buechler
Ridgeland, Mississippi
U.S.A.
MTC-00007718
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let the settlement stand as is and let's get this fiasco over
with. I thought this country was about entrepreneurship and better
mousetraps, etc, but it seems to be moving closer to mediocrity
every day, the result of penalizing anyone who can do something
better than others. End it.
MTC-00007719
From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:08am
Subject: microsoft is a great company and has done nothing
wrong!!!!!!!!
microsoft is a great company and has done nothing wrong!!!!!!!!
Rich Tackett
19811 Portal Plaza
Cupertino, Calif. 95014 408 253-7810
MTC-00007720
From: Rev. Bill Mounce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
Sirs,
I am an often frustrated but dedicated Windows' user. I have
been since Windows 2.1. At times I hate it. But I DO NOT believe
Microsoft should be prosecuted for anything. They have been
successful because, while they are not perfect, NO ONE has anything
better. I feel it is their competitors whining because they are
incapable of building anything better that has caused this entire
mess at the taxpayer's cost. It is utterly ridiculous. If the other
programs were better. . . I would definitely use them. But alas they
are not and yet they want Microsoft broken up to cripple the
company. The impact on the PC world and business' everywhere would
be catastrophic. Let's end this nonsense now and let Microsoft do
what they do best. . . build programs for the struggling PC
industry. And if anyone else can build a better ``mouse-trap'', we,
the consumers will judge with out money. Thank you.
Bill & Shandy Mounce
Leesville, LA 71446
MTC-00007721
From: Andy West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
I would like to comment on the proposed settlement to the
Microsoft anti-trust case. I
[[Page 24942]]
have read that certain clauses in section III of the purposed
settlement give Microsoft rights unusual for a guilty party. Section
III (D), in which Microsoft must disclose information needed for the
software of other companies to interoperate with Windows, specifies
in its footnotes that only commercial businesses alone receive these
disclosures. This in effect bars universities, research laboratories
and agencies of the Federal government itself from such information.
Section III (J)(2) gives the right to determine what constitutes
a business--for the purpose of licensing APIs, documentation, or
protocols--not to the Department of Justice but to Microsoft. This
gives Microsoft leave to shut out not just non-commercial entities
such as open-source projects, but even federal agencies in the
course of their own software projects.
These are the only two clauses I have read about, but these two
alone give Microsoft too much power to determine how the keystone of
its monopoly may be used. I would like to ask that the settlement be
renegotiated on at least these two clauses, if not for the sake of
the open-source movement, then for the sake of the agencies and
projects of the Federal government itself.
Sincerely,
Mark Andrew West
202 East Washington Street
Fairmount, Indiana 46928
Tel: 765-747-2919 (work)
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00007722
From: padam2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:09am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please use taxdollars to do something usefull.Stop going after
microsoft and use your intelect to stimulate the economy rather than
forever piling up the fees paid to selfserving legal entrepeneurs.I
am retired and will not visit any of the states that continue to
oppose a microsoft settlement.
MTC-00007723
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I encourage you to get this settled. The economy won't start a
full recovery until this is settled. Get it off the books!
Susan M. Swenson
MTC-00007724
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10am
Subject: settlement
it is time that the issue surrounding Microsoft be completed--if
the Dept Of Justice has concluded thier tsettlement than the
remaining states shoud follow suigt and stop wasting the taxpayers
money--the iswsues of monoply may have some vaility to it--but the
benenfit far outweighs the punishment.
Sincerly
Carl Sanders
200 Elm Street
San Mateo. Ca. 94401
MTC-00007725
From: Khozem Poonawala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:12am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Microsoft, or any company for that matter, should have the
freedom to innovate. The Microsoft case should be settled, now, once
and for all. It is good for America and the american economy.
Khozem Poonawala
MTC-00007726
From: George Aubrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: about time
This settlement should go forward and not delay causing more
problems for the consumer. This lawsuit has caused enough problems
by not allowing Microsoft freely develop their software. When
Microsoft begins to gouge the consumer with high prices of their
software then lets get them, in the meantime let the consumer call
the shots.
MTC-00007727
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I believe that Microsoft deserves fair and unbiased treatment. I
am a supporter of Windows and of Microsoft integrating features.
When the computer companies started, I could not afford the great
features of the Apple and had to stick with a Vic 20. While dating
myself a bit, I found Microsoft to be the only company willing to
bring computing down to a level I could afford and my family could
understand.
Please stop the nonsense. There are bigger fish such as Credit
Card Companies that need to be stopped and Oil and Car companies
that should be providing better alternatives and more fuel efficient
cars. If you have any questions, please feel free to email back.
Thank you,
[email protected]
MTC-00007728
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can accept the ruling of the court BUT I feel that in an open
society we can only advance if we provide an environment that
supports innovative business strategies. Microsoft started from the
bottom and made many investors wealthy, companies successful and our
nation a leader in the software development. We need to ask the WHY
should we handicap the leadership of current and future companies
like Microsoft and allow them to ride on the coat tails by taking
legal action.
I, as an INFORMED consumer, knew what I had bought and what the
consequences of my decision . . . I assume the responsibility and
accountability of my decisions . . . AND others need to do the same.
Microsoft would not have grown if through individual research their
products were rejected as occurred in many areas of technology.
John Bucelato
301 Willards Way
Yorktown, VA 23693
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00007729
From: David Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:13am
Subject: no subject>
Dear Sirs: I am anxious to see the case against Microsoft
settled in a manner that is fair to all parties, and does not
infringe upon Microsoft's freedom to innovate, to make creative use
of a free market to aggressively market its widely used and superior
products to the world. I feel that a quick and fair settlement to
this case is in the best interest of the consumers and the economy
of our country. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express
my opinion.
Sincerely,
David Watkins
MTC-00007730
From: Alex Melli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:15am
Subject: My Opinion
To who it may concern:
Regarding the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft Corp., and the
pending penalty phase, I would like to register my opinion. I do not
agree with the penalties being assessed. The proposed penalties I've
heard, involving Microsoft contributing loads of computers and
software to schools is not appropriate for several reasons:
--It is creating future users (i.e. customers) for Microsoft. It's
like letting a drug company give a vitamin to schoolchildren, making
them dependent on it and creating a future customer.
--This is actually a bonus for Microsoft, giving them more inroads
to the education market!
--The penalty is a minor inconvenience at worst. For that
corporation, it is the equivilent of a parking ticket.
--The were found GUILTY of a violation, so the price to pay should
be a proactive move to repair their damage AND make sure it does not
happer further.
--It is difficult to asses the value of any donated computers of
software. Software should be assessed by physical cost of the
product. So donating a single program does not count as $300, but
the actual cost to the company, probably around $20.
If Microsoft is to be properly penalized, one factor *should* be
an educational donation. The order of money should be in the
hundreds of millions (this is supposed to be a penalty, after all),
and it should be a flat out cash payment. It should be left to the
recipient of the money what to do with it, not the party being
``penalized.'' And why should the guilty part have any say in what
their penalty is in the first place? Iif I think that speeding
ticket is too much, do I have any choice? NO. The law dictates my
punishment, and I'm bound to that. Just because Microsoft is the
biggest player in the game, they are still a player, not the
referee.
BOTTOM LINE: Microsoft needs to be PENALIZED for being found
GUILTY. And
[[Page 24943]]
on a final note, the arguement that breaking up Microsoft would have
too big of an impact on the entire computer industry (and the
economy) should be proof in itself that the company is a monopoly. .
.
Sincerely,
Alex Melli
Laguna Beach, California
MTC-00007732
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:16am
Subject: (no subject)
Microsoft is the Ford Motor Company of the computer business. It
is a shale to penalize a company for being the forward looking and
the brains of the industry. Shame on the justice department, our
government penalizing a company for doing what is correct, for
inventing their components for their use in order to better serve
the public.
Ed Logue [email protected]
MTC-00007734
From: A. Bairamian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. I support DOJ decision to settle the
Microsoft lawsuit.
This ill-advised lawsuit--instigated by jealous competitors and
presided over by a biased judge--has caused great harm to Microsoft
and the entire tech sector.
It is time to end this useless lawsuit, so Microsoft can go back
to producing and innovating.
A. Bairamian
Glendale, CA.
MTC-00007735
From: David Demland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Comments
Dear Mrs. Hesse,
Here are my comments about the Microsoft settlement.
David Demland
3506 E. Glenrosa
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 955-3248
[email protected]
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mrs. Hesse,
I would like to introduce myself. My name is David Demland. I
have been in software development for almost 15 years. I have work
in all aspects of software development during my career. For the
past three years I have been a Quality Assurance (QA) manager. I
have spent most of my career centered on not only the software that
is developed, but the way software is developed. I have worked hard
to get developers to understand that we have to have a goal of ``no
defects'', weather or not we can produce ``no defects''. I Have done
everything from writing code to leading projects and development
teams. I say all of this so that it may be clear that I am an expert
in the area of software and software development. I wish that all
the following comments are taken in that light. The following
comments reflect my feelings about the U.S. Government and Microsoft
settlement.
I wish to thank the U.S. Government and the Nine States that
have settled this long awaited case for all their due diligence and
hard work to finally settle this landmark case. All of us in this
industry are in your debt for this work. If for no other reason than
that we now know that if a hi-tech company can obtain a monopoly
they may break the law all they want to remove competition and
nothing will happen. Not long ago I had the hope that free
competition and a fair business ethic might return to our industry
leader, I now know that will never happen. In July of 1998 there was
a great article in the Arizona Republic about John D. Rockefeller
and Bill Gates. This article was about a new book called ``Titan''
by Ron Chernow. This book told about Rockefeller and the author of
the article showed how much alike Bill Gates was in respect to
business. The only difference is that Rockefeller was not as
successful as Gates in getting the government to accept that a
monopoly should be allow to do what it wants with no penalties. Did
the author of this article know something at that time that the rest
of us missed?
As I have read and followed just about everything that came out
from the trial all the way down to this proposed settlement one
thing has come to mind over and over again--everything being talked
about seems to focus on how Microsoft has conducted it's business in
the past and how to keep them from doing these practices again in
the future. Yet everything points to how fast this industry changes.
This leads to a simple question: How will restricting the way
Microsoft conducted itself in the 90's apply to today's conduct when
the business practices have already changed in the industry as a
whole and Microsoft is doing the same thing but in different ways?
As a guide I will use the Competitive Impact Statement that
describes the way this proposal will work. On page 4 there are two
bulleted points that came to my attention right a way, for reference
they are the third and fourth bullet points. Both of these points
are to ensure that third parties can work with Microsoft products.
At this point there are no time lines mention, but the point is
clear that this will be done so that third parties have time to get
their products to work with Microsoft products. These missing time
lines will need to be kept in mind, there will be times I will
return to these points again.
I find it interesting that on page 14 it talks about the court
findings that: Microsoft threatened to cancel development of its
``Office for Macintosh'' software, which, as Microsoft recognized,
was critical to Apple's business. Microsoft required Apple to make
Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom
to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, in order to
protect the applications barrier to entry. Yet the current
provisions really do not address this behavior. Of course this would
mean that Microsoft would have to have a monopoly on office suites
was well. Since this has not been an issue in the court it needs to
be looked at to understand the company culture. In the industry
today, for the most part, it has been conceded that MS Office is a
monopoly in the office suite arena 1. Will Microsoft use this tactic
again? This will be certain.
1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf A look at what
has become known as the halloween documents will give a very detail
insight about this issue 2. In the first halloween document
Microsoft implies that a way to beat Unix in general would be ``Fold
extended functionality into protocols / services and create new
protocols''. This look shows that in the same matter that Microsoft
blackmailed Apple they would blackmail the whole industry if they
could. Many thought that Microsoft would never extend a recognize
standard after the halloween documents were published, yet in
Windows 2000, W2K, Microsoft did just that. A well known and
accepted security standard was added to by Microsoft. This standard
is called Kerberos. Once again the use of the Microsoft OS can be
used by Microsoft to change the industry just by doing. Where does
this behavior help the industry and the consumer except just to push
Microsoft's dominance farther? In Wired magazine there was a comment
about the change that Microsoft was going through at that time when
Steve Ballmer was moved into Bill Gates position of presidency.
James Wallace said: 2. These are internal Microsoft documents that
was published on the internet. After these papers were published,
Microsoft not only admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as
far as to say this is the way they do normal business. These can be
found at: http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://
www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/
halloween3.html, Ballmer's promotion ``represents a fundamental
shift away from workgroup computing into not only enterprise
computing but internet computing, which requires a different
sensitivity'' 3. 3. Why Bill Gates Quit His Job, by James Wallace,
Wired December 1998 Could it be that James Wallace saw what Consumer
Federation of America just reported in September 2001 1? Once again
I ask: How can Microsoft be held accountable in a 2001 software
industry using a 1990's industry model when the industry has changed
so much? Are we saying that when an industry changes fast enough a
business that breaks the law should be allowed to because they can
change the industry before any sanctions are handed out to them?
1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf At the top of
page 18 there is a discussion about what Microsoft Middleware is.
The way this has been defined it allows Microsoft to tell the
industry what the middleware is, not what the market believes. To
understand how this effects the industry as a whole I will relate a
story of a problem I ran into that cost the business I worked for
eight months of work and left many of our customers in a bind.
Microsoft create the Microsoft Data Access
[[Page 24944]]
Component, MDAC, to allow Windows applications to use different ODBC
drivers to access databases. When Office 2000 was released,
Microsoft release a new version of MDAC. This version of MDAC was
not compatible with previous version. There were many problems with
Microsoft including a new service pack release that had the same
problems. To make a long story short it took eight months to get the
two fixes to allow both of our products to work with this new MDAC.
This is a very high price for a small business. Does this sound like
a business that is trying to work with well their customers? What
does this story mean to this settlement? Well if Microsoft can say
what is middleware by themselves, what are companies like the one I
work for to do? Are we always going to be expected to keep rewriting
our products to match what Microsoft tells us to do just because
they have a monopoly on the OS and they do not have to care about us
as small businesses?
1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf
2. These are internal Microsoft documents that was published on
the internet. After these papers were published, Microsoft not only
admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as far as to say this is
the way they do normal business. These can be found at: http://
www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/
halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html,Wait
a minute, this settlement dictates that this will not happen because
middleware API's have to be disclosed. Take a moment at look closely
at this case. Where in this story did anything deal with an API? In
fact just after this Office release became a big enough deal to
developers, Microsoft announced that MDAC would become part of OS 2.
All these problems were backward compatibility issues and this is
just one of the new tools Microsoft can use to control the industry
in the new environment that has changed since the 1990's and this
settlement does not even address these types of issues. Once again I
ask, are hi-tech business allow to break any laws they wish and
because the industry changes so fast there is nothing that can be
done about it?
2. This was at Microsoft developer days here in Phoenix that
later the next year. This problem of Microsoft doing what ever they
want to control the industry appears on page 19 as well. In the last
paragraph a Microsoft Middleware Product mentions the Microsoft's
Java Virtual Machine. Did you know that this no longer exists?
Microsoft, after losing to Sun on the Java Virtual Machine, JVM,
issues has now created a new language and drop support for JVM. How
is this going to effect the industry? Once again because Microsoft
is using it's monopoly power to force business to rewrite all their
products. It is now clear how Steve Ballmer has lead Microsoft into
the internet age the same way as Bill Gates lead Microsoft into the
1990's. Their goal is to keep Microsoft the largest player no matter
how it effects the consumer or other businesses. What do you think
John D. Rockefeller would say today after seeing his business
penalized and Microsoft left to doing it over and over again? What
is the consumer to think? In all this there is another accomplice to
the dirty deeds of Microsoft. This is the government. That's right.
On page 20, the last three lines, the government has told the
country do not start a business in an area that will compete with
Microsoft Middleware it can not be allowed. Where do I get this
from? It is simple, what was the last start-up company able to sell
at least a million copies of their product from the start? I have
yet to find one. So what this means is if there is a start-up in one
of these areas do not worry Microsoft does not have to tell you
anything. So just think, after spending a lot of money you will go
out of business anyway. What a way to go. The government has said as
long as the current competition can stay alive there will be
competition, but once that competition is gone, O well. Once again
thank you for looking out for the consumer. As it is stated on page
21 this ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's affirmative
obligations... being triggered by minor, or even, nonexistent,
products that have not established a competitive potential in the
market''. This is a great thought, if there is no competition, how
can you be a monopoly? How is no new competition good for the
consumer? I find the commits on page 24 at the bottom of the page
rather odd:
Thus, the key to the proper remedy in this case is to end
Microsoft's restrictions on potentially threatening middleware,
prevent it from hampering similar nascent threats in the future and
restore the competitive conditions created by similar middleware
threats. How is this going to be achieved if over a million copies
are required on page 21? This seems to be a contradiction to me. Am
I missing something? As if this has not been technical enough let's
talk about how the dual boot is to be done on page 26. At the
current time W2K was released with a small problem, it does not look
at the BOIS for the hard disk information at boot up time. This
basically renders tools like System Commander useless. So how is a
consumer, or GEM, going to be able to use these tools if Microsoft
bypasses common practices. Where is this address to ensure that
there is no subversion to activating other partitions and making
these tools and their manufactures useless. One argument is that
this is an API that has to be disclosed, but if it takes months for
this information to become available there is no way to have fixes
in place for these companies that create these tools. This will be
looked at close a little later.
On page 27 is one of the best examples of how the government
failed to help support the free market competition. Here the
industry has been told that if you are not one of the 20 largest
OEMs, that Microsoft licenses to, you can be locked out of
information. This is great, once again any small company has been
told that they should not enter into this industry. Does this mean
that the government supports only having large business? If not how
will a small business be able to compete under this section? Even on
page 20 and 28 the message seems to be clear the top 20 OEMs are the
only ones that count.
On page 32 there are two issues. At the bottom of the page it
talks about dual boot systems being allowed. As I have already
talked about, how it this going to be handled if Microsoft continues
to bypass standard practices on boot up? If tools like System
Commander can be rendered useless what is going to keep Microsoft
from allowing this same issues on a dual boot system to discourage
OEMs from shipping these systems. Would it not have made more since
to ensure that Microsoft uses the industry standards to ensure they
do not subvert this issue? I think a very important issue has been
missed in this area.
The best part of this page is at the end of the first paragraph.
I would like to thank you for penalizing all of us in the industry
for Microsoft abusing their monopoly power. I find it outrageous
that is was agreed that OEMs must use software substitutions that
act like the Microsoft software that it is being substituted for. Is
it assumed that these OEMs write their own software? If so that is
wrong. There are many companies, like the small ones I have worked
for, that do this software and you have just told them if it cost
tens of thousands of dollars to rewrite their software do it if they
want an OEM use your software in place of Microsoft. What did these
businesses do wrong to deserve this penalty?
On page 43 it talks about Microsoft putting information on their
MSDN for APIs and other important information that has to be shared.
I found this amusing because it does not say how this information
should be handled on MSDN. In fact this has allowed Microsoft a
great way to make more money off of developers. They can put this
information on MSDN in a hidden place and when developers call to
find it they can be charged to find out where it is. What a penalty
for breaking the law.
Now we come to the timeline items. On page 35 the proposal for
the releasing of the XP APIs is a great try, but it still gives
Microsoft about a year lead time to get a head of all the other
developers. I have created, and maintained, this type of
documentation at two different businesses in my career and in every
case I have had this type of documentation before we got to far into
the early stages of testing. Microsoft should already have this as
well. It should not take more than two or three months, at most, to
polish these API documents to make them public. I find it hard to
accept that the definition of this timeline, for documentation, is
different for the middleware products. I have a real problem with
timeline of the last major beta before release before the first
release candidate for the middleware products. In most cases this
will be only a couple of months before the final release. This will
make it hard for other developers to make changes to work in a
timely matter. Especially when there are multimillion lines of code
in many products today. Please see above about the MDAC story. The
standard that the industry tends to follow for a beta test is best
put: The product has completed all of the major features content
that has been planned for the final release... During the beta
release, the product
[[Page 24945]]
will be tested for it functionality, specifically with regard to
defects.
1. Michael E. Bays--Software Release Methodology 1999 Prentice-
Hall This definition makes it clear that the industry believes that
at the time of the beta test all functionality is complete, this
means that the APIs are complete as well, otherwise it would be an
alpha test and the product is still changing. Does this timeline not
allow Microsoft to hold back information for middleware APIs until
it is hard for competitors to be ready at the same time as
Microsoft? How does this keep Microsoft from locking out software
like Netscape? Please see page 12. Pages 36--38 deals with protocols
but it misses the fundamental problem with Microsoft and how they
can hurt the industry and the consumer. How can protocols be talked
about without including industry standards? Microsoft has shown that
it will do what ever it takes to keep their monopoly. This has been
well proven in the trial court level and upheld in the appellate
court level. Yet this fact seems to have been over looked when it
comes to the use of industry standard protocols by Microsoft.
Microsoft has had proposals internally placed on the table to extend
common protocols to help lock out competitors 1.
1. Halloween documents http://www.opensource.org/
halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and
http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html, This issue was thrust
into the fore front when W2K was released with Kerberos. Microsoft
had extended this common industry standard to try to lock out other
Unix computers. Microsoft's extension to this industry standard is
also a major part of the European case against Microsoft. It also
shows how much power Microsoft has to destroy computer connectivity.
Why is it that nothing has been said about Microsoft doing as so
many of the smaller businesses, in this industry, must do have to
have these standards changed? That is make Microsoft have to go
before these bodies to get these standards changed instead of being
able to dictate to the whole industry a new standard. If this issue
is not addressed Microsoft will be able to use this ability to
change standards to continue their predatory monopoly actions even
in the new Internet age. Can one company be allowed to dictate to
the whole world how business should be ran? Should not Microsoft be
forced to use common standards so that all competitors will have a
chance?
On page 39 the whole world has been told that Microsoft does not
have to disclose protocols if these disclosures would compromise
system security. Listed items are anti-piracy, anti-virus, software
licensing, digital rights management, encryption and authentication
features. First of all, Microsoft is not the only business that has
had find ways to handle anti-piracy, antivirus, software licensing,
and digital rights management. Every business that produces software
has had these issues and all of them have found a way to make them
work. The only difference is that all the other business have not
always be able to have both the OS and the application under their
control. So these businesses have turned to common industry
standards, and practices, to find a solutions. Why should Microsoft
be able to change these standards just because they are the largest
software company and control the OS and office suites? As far as
encryption and authentication, how does this section protect the
industry and consumer from being blackmailed by Microsoft into lower
or less secure standards?
How can this type of control and influence be bad for the
consumer? Bill Gates once said to the German magazine (FOCUS) that
bugs (defects) are unimportant 1. Also Microsoft, itself, has
documented that there were 63,000 known defects in Windows 2000,
W2K, when it shipped 2. If it is more important to Microsoft to get
the product out than to get a properly running product out, how can
Microsoft be trusted to do a protocol standard right without other
industry leaders giving input?
1. FOCUS Oct 23, 1995--found on-line at http://www.cantrip.org/
nobugs.html
2. Microsoft, Who Let the Bugs Out? osOpinion.com Oct 23, 2001--
found on-line at http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/14306.html Page
40 allows Microsoft to enter into a contract with a developer that
limits that developer from promoting other competing software if
such limitation are reasonably necessary. The problem here is what
does this really mean. For example, if Microsoft is working on a
contract with a business that has some existing file converters to
bring in other word processing formats into Word for Windows,
WinWord, can Microsoft restrict the contracting company from
exporting from WinWord so that there is no way to convert out of the
Microsoft product? How does this wording work in the internet
business model?
On page 45 the second paragraph talks about removing middleware.
How is this effected with help files? No matter what browser is
installed on a Microsoft computer, when the HTML help system is
invoked Internet Explorer, IE, is the only browser used to display
the HTML files. This means that no matter what browser is used to
surf the internet IE must be present for HTML help to work. How does
this section handle this issue? Does this not allow Microsoft to
continue this practice?
Also on this same page it is talked about the technical changes
to W2K and XP, yet it only gives a timeline for the XP changes. What
happens to W2K? There are many consumers that have privacy issues
with XP so it is very important that W2K changes must be made and
W2K must be maintained.
On page 48 it states that Microsoft can not prompt a user for
OEM custom changes for 14 days. Does this mean that Microsoft can
then prompt the user all the time until they get so feed up with the
prompts they allow Microsoft to change the computer configuration?
Why is this even in the document? Is Microsoft saying that if an OEM
sets up a computer that users are to stupid to change the factory
settings? Why not leave users alone altogether? I give you all a
hand for the concept of the TC. This is a great way to ensure that
Microsoft abides by the settlement without creating a whole new
branch of the government to do the oversight. I have just one
question: Who's stupid idea was it to add the section on page 58
that the TC information can not be used in any proceeding before the
Court? Is this a ``get out of jail free card'' for Microsoft? Are
you trying to make it cost the tax payer more money to make sure
Microsoft plays by the rules? Is this a loophole that Microsoft can
use later so that it can get off the hook after it has failed to
follow this settlement? What am I missing? This is something to lead
the public to believe that Microsoft is paying a price for breaking
the law when it is doing nothing but rewarding Microsoft for do
something that no other company has been able to do; break the law
and get away with it? This whole section should be removed.
Again on page 60 it looks like there is another loophole that is
good for Microsoft and not for the consumer. It says that after the
initial five years of this settlement the Plaintiffs may ask for a
two year extension. What happens if Microsoft still has problems in
the two year extension, nothing? What is the public to think about
this? If Microsoft puts up with the TO long enough that everything
will go away not matter what? Is this fair for a company that broke
the law? On page 62, where there is a list of relief that was looked
at but not part of the settlement. In this list there were a couple
of items that I find hard to believe were not part of this
settlement. I find these two issues to hard to skip over with the
weight of what this outcome has on the consumer and the industry as
a whole. The first one not ensuring that Microsoft includes non-
Microsoft middleware in its distribution of the Windows Operating
System. The example here was the Java Virtual Machine, JVM. I go
back to what I said before, are we to believe that only Microsoft
knows where the direction of the industry should be going? Or should
we take it that Microsoft should be allowed to find new ways to
maintain it's monopoly at the expense of the consumer? What is it so
hard to about Microsoft being require Microsoft follow industry
standards like any other business? Is everyone afraid that Microsoft
would have to compete with more competition if this is done? After
all is it unreasonable for Microsoft to lower the barrier to entry
since that was one of the key points of this whole case?
The other item in this list was requiring Microsoft to fully
support industry standards. Was this dropped because to force this
on Microsoft would also allow other competitors into the market
place? Does this point to this whole settlement being nothing more
than smoke and mirrors? These two items alone could have great
impact on restoring competition to the market. How could these have
been overlooked, or removed from the list? Now lets look at some of
the other overlooked problems with this settlement. Right now
Microsoft seems to have a lot of security problems. This may be
misleading in some ways. What I mean is that Microsoft may not be
any worst at security than any one else, but because there is no
other real competition it makes Microsoft a perfect target
1. This would lead one to believe that for the public's best
interest there needs to be a viable option to the Windows OS. This
will
[[Page 24946]]
never happen as long as Microsoft continues down it current path of
total monopolization of the PC OS. This is where this settlement
fails the most. I would hope that this is not that hard to see and
understand, am I wrong?
1. Good security administration is crucial by Madeline Bennett,
IT Week Friday October 19, 2001. On Page 10 of Competitive Impact
Statement there is a perfect commit that says that users want to
know the OS will have the needed applications before investing in an
OS. This is important observation. Where does this settlement help
towards that goal? Or is it that this goal is to big of a price to
be paid for hurting the consumer and destroying competition with
predatory practices? How could the Declaration of Carl Shapiro be
overlooked when he said that one of the reasons that Linux failed to
be competition to Windows is because of the lack of popular
applications like Microsoft Office 1. This alone would allow
competition back into this industry. So why not have Microsoft port
its office suite to Linux? Would this not help restore true
competition without rewarding Microsoft for breaking the law? If
Microsoft had to port this suite and was required to support it on
the Linux platform for three years would not that do much better
over all? Just think, if Microsoft had a product line on Linux, it
would be less likely to ``expand'' industry protocols to lock out an
OS that it would be trying to recover their expense for porting to.
What would be wrong with this? Or are you saying that the industry
and consumer are not important in this matter?
1. Declaration of Carl Shapiro page 3. These types of relief
would go very far to really help innovation by allowing true
competition back into the market place. This is what this industry,
and the consumer, need. Overall the current settlement penalizes
other business for Microsoft's conduct and it even rewards Microsoft
for breaking the law. This is a shame. I hope that this is reject
and a real settlement that benefits the industry and consumers is
reached.
In the above commits it should also be clear that this
settlement, as currently proposed, will do nothing in keeping
Microsoft from using predatory practices with the way the current
market is moving. We can not expect reliefs based off of the way the
industry worked in the past to apply to the way it does business
today when it is a different business world and the current
settlement does not take that into account. This must not be
overlooked if real relief is to be made for the consumer and for the
industry as a whole. There are many ways that this settlement
encourages Microsoft to continue its current goals for removing all
competitors from the market and that means there was a lot of wasted
money to get a court ruling that does not change anything. At what
point will it finally be accepted that Microsoft will only learn a
lesson if it required to give up some of its monopoly power? When
will the industry and the consumer finally be defended?
Thank You,
David Demland
MTC-00007736
From: Robert Corkrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Move on!!!!!!!!!!The few attorneys generals holding up this
settlement need to understand that everyone but them has moved
on.It's a new economy stupid! thanks Bob
MTC-00007737
From: ginih
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I disagree with the tearing apart of Microsoft. It seems if
anyone in the U.S. comes up with a wonderful invention there is
always someone who is jealous of them. They want a part of it & so
they sue. Look at A.T.T. the little companys wanted a part of them.
So they sued every time they started to go bankrupt. They also use
the Bell Co. lines at very little cost. Do you think we could go
into McDonalds & rent their grills for very little money? I don't
think sooooo. It's time to tell the sue happy people to crawl back
in their holes. If they can't come up with good ideas of their own,
don't let them sue & steal from the Co.'s that are contributing to
the economy. Let Microsoft alone, they are the creative Company.
MTC-00007738
From: Charlotte Kenworthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, It is my opioion that the Microsoft settlement is a fair
and just settlement. It is time to move on and put this whole ordeal
behind us. Competitors and special interest groups have carried this
far enough...let's abide by given settlement. Charlotte Kenworthy
MTC-00007739
From: CANDA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think it is time for the government to leave Microsoft alone.
Why not go after the drug manufacturers and their deals made with
insurance companies. The under the counter deals are not in the best
interest of the consumers and should be covered by anti trust laws.
Microsoft is o.k. and even though I do not use their internet
services, they continue to give me excellent service. I agree with
Ted Kennedy when he said the case against Microsoft sounded like
``sour apples''.I will continue to use the products of Microsoft
even if they are more expensive because their products are more user
friendly. Thank you,
Carolyn
Hinton
MTC-00007740
From: Brent Kopp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement as proposed should be accepted by both parties.
True, MS is a tough and ruthless competitor. That will force anyone
attempting to break their dominant position to develop a new
software or computing method that will be a significant improvement
in order to impress the using public. The ``market'' is a rough and
tumble setting, the higher the reward the greater the energy and
risk taking and the more likely chance of really better, as opposed
to merely different, products that will benefit the using community.
Their are times when the MS programs drive me crazy with their
uncorrected programming errors, syntax mistakes and just sloppy
lines of code. But I trust the competitive market more than a
government agency to bring me relief. Also, in my opinion the former
lawyers in the anti trust division gave too much credence to the
complainers(Netscape etc.,) who perhaps influenced this entire
affair thru their campaign contributions and their political allies.
It has been sordid from the start, so let's get it put to bed.
Brent Kopp
[email protected]
EarthLink: It's your Internet.
MTC-00007741
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
In my opinnion, government should get out of the way of free
enterprise and let it do the job it does so well!! Microsoft has--
and is--providing a good product at a fair price. Consumers are not
unsatisfied!
The ones unsatisfied are those who don't have the ability to
compete.
Nels
MTC-00007742
From: Clyde w. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi ! I would like to see the Microsoft case settled and let them
have the right to innovate ! Thank you !!!!
Clyed W. Butler
[email protected]
MTC-00007743
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the government should settle, Micorsoft has been great for the
ecomomy of the Northwest and has enabled business that use computers
more competative.
H.D. McBride
MTC-00007744
From: William C. Caccamise Sr. , M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has revolutionized the computer field and the
practical use of the Internet by millions of people. It is the Jewel
of the American capitalistic system. I have always felt that Mr.
Gates should be given the highest civilian award offered by our
government. The aggressive attack on Microsoft by the Clinton
Administration was a disservice to the computer world and society
itself.
[[Page 24947]]
I know that my entire family including my grandchildren, my
children, my wife, and myself--all avid computer users--are indebted
to Microsoft for making the computer world and The Informational Age
available to us in such a practicable manner. We hope that the DOJ
will allow Microsoft to proceed freely in its unending goal of ever
improving our access to the world of computers, software, and the
Internet.
Thank you Microsoft--and Mr.. Gates--for making the retirement
years of this 78 year old physician years filled with excitement and
learning.
Sincerely,
William Charles Caccamise Sr, MD
12 South Pittsford Hill Lane
Pittsford, New York
[email protected]
Telephone : 1-585-381-3855
FAX: 1-585-385-1355
MTC-00007745
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to let the settlement regarding Microsoft go through
for all states. It is of no benefit to anyone to delay this process
any further. One of the many great American ideals is the free
market economy in which the best companies can survive. Because a
company is more innovative than its competitors is no reason to
prevent it from continuing its business.
MTC-00007746
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:25am
Subject: (no subject)
Tell these renegade states to knock it off and get back to the
nations business!
MTC-00007747
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer user, I feel that the settlement is more than
fair. Consumers world wide have been benefitted by innovation
created by competition. I firmly believe that Microsoft competitors
are misusing the court system to gain what they could not attain in
the market place.
Edward J. Mueller
15000 Village Greem Drive # 40
Mill Creek, Wa 98012
MTC-00007748
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible: the
proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
Regards,
Brad Stephenson
San Marcos, CA
MTC-00007749
From: morales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:29am
Subject: Bill is God.
Microsoft rules! Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
morales
3024 west 25
cleveland, oh, 44113
[email protected]
Victories are temporary, however failure is forever.
MTC-00007750
From: Bob Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlelment
May it please the court, I appreciate as a consumer, the
opportunity, and right to comment on the settlement agreement
between the Microsoft Corporation, and the United States Department
of Justice. My comments come as a consumer, specific to the issues
that relate to my purchase, use, and experience with the many
software products available today, which include those developed and
sold by Microsoft.
In the roughly three years that this case has been under trial,
I have read much of the available information on the trial, as well
as the many, many statements given by competitors of Microsoft, and
their concern with Microsoft's behavior, both before and during the
trial. Never in my recollection of watching the business world have
I observed such a concerted effort by numerous companies to malign
and destroy the image, perception, and products, of a successful
company. And what amazes me even more is that to a large degree,
these companies employ many of the very same tactics used by
Microsoft yet without any apparent threat of reproof. America Online
(heretofore referred to as AOL) is a company that for every intent
and purpose, has today the vast majority of Internet users as
customers for their service. Effectively, they are presently as we
speak, a monopoly in that industry. Yet to read any news publication
today, the most that fact will bring is a limp assertion that yes,
AOL is the predominant Internet Service Provider (heretofore
referred to as ISP), with roughly 30 million subscribers, and it is
left at that. No one is investigating AOL, no Congressional Hearings
are scheduled, and in fact, great care is taken to ensure that their
product and service in this industry is insulated from competition.
During their recent merger with Time Warner, Inc., the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) had the opportunity in their review
of the merger, to require AOL to make their instant messenger
service compatible with other similar services. As a consumer, I can
instantly relate to the importance and advantage of such a
requirement. The FCC however did not capitalize on that opportunity,
and as a result, the media giant continues to lock out users of
other ISP services from communicating with AOL subscribers.
In comparison, when I review and observe the Microsoft case, as
well as comments associated, I see that products where I as a
consumer realize a benefit, are under constant scrutiny, not only
from the government, but even more so from competitors. For example,
the various versions of the Windows operating system have for years
offered a form of a media player, which is presently under dispute
by many competitors, as that application or device resides within
the latest version of the Windows product, Windows XP. For years
that was not a concern, but now another company exists,
RealNetworks, which offers for free a download player called
RealPlayer. Suddenly a benefit that I had as a consumer with the
purchase of an operating system is threatened because another
company wants to limit what is contained within the operating
system. Regardless of the fact that any consumer can download for
free the RealPlayer, RealNetworks Inc., for one, among others,
protests the inclusion of Microsoft's Media Player within the
operating system because it competes directly with what RealNetworks
would like to give away for free. The bottom line? As a consumer, I
see the potential of a very robust and ``application capable''
operating system, one that offers me great flexibility and
performance, being required to reduce it's service and functionality
to me so that others can improve their opportunity to compete. Yet
the fact is, this product offered by RealNetworks is an easy
download, and is often loaded onto machines alongside of Microsoft's
Media Player anyway. Twenty years ago, there might have been a case
to consider here. Consumers were still getting their feet wet in
determining the right hardware and software to purchase, and many
were easily confused, and possibly misled in the process. Today
however consumers are quite prepared to make well informed decisions
about their hardware and software purchases. With a plethora of
information available, through various forms of communication
(media, print, Internet, classes, service companies, etc) the
consumer has more than enough information available to help them in
their purchasing decisions. And frankly, that is supposed to be what
all of this is about:
The consumer, and the protection of their purchasing power and
decisions. In fact, everyone from Senator Orrin Hatch, to Ann
Bingham (head of Antitrust Division, original investigation, 1995)
to Judge Penfield Jackson has stated all along that the it was the
consumer they were representing in their fight against Microsoft.
However the ramifications of their actions has been anything but
positive for consumers. I have today countless choices of software I
can run on my PC, simply because of the operating system standard
provided by Microsoft. I do not use Microsoft software exclusively,
nor do any of the people I see regularly who work with computers. As
a consumer, I feel I am quite well informed about what products
exist in the marketplace, and I am quite confident I can make
intelligent choices about the products I wish to purchase. However I
believe that of ALL the interests represented in the courtroom, in
the media, and in print, the consumer's interests have been the
least heard or considered. Companies like Sun Microsystems, Oracle,
AOL, Novell, Apple, & IBM are not nearly so interested in what works
well for me as a consumer, as they are interested in gaining
[[Page 24948]]
market share for their own respective companies. If this settlement
is derailed, through the lobbying of companies like this, it will
prove once and for all that competition, and consumer choice in the
marketplace, no longer determine or direct the outcome of products
and services, as they have for the last several hundred years.
Market share, and competitive advantage cannot and should not be
awarded in a courtroom. The measures within this settlement
agreement are sufficient to ensure that Microsoft cannot take unfair
advantage of, or punish any company in the future. At the same time
however it preserves Microsoft's right and ability to continue to
provide the best product possible, which is for me, the consumer,
the best and only appropriate outcome.
The additional measures sought by the nine rouge states go well
beyond what is necessary, and actually threaten the intellectual
property of one of the country's most successful businesses (and
this frankly, threatens us all). No other company in this country
(or the world for that matter), has been required to dismantle it's
showcase product, to it's own demise and destruction, simply to
appease the wishes of less successful competitors. To do so now,
would unfairly serve only those companies, and would destroy much of
the gain realized by consumers through Microsoft's achievements in
product integration. If this court truly values the purchasing power
of millions of consumers, who are today quite savvy about what kinds
of software they need and want, it will allow this settlement to
stand, and repel the imperious demands of the nine states that
remain as extreme and overreaching. Thank you for your time and
attention to review my comments.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Rasmussen
[email protected]
MTC-00007751
From: Gary Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I
overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is good for the industry
and the American economy. I further believe prolonged litigation
would only stifle inovation and just benefit a handful of well
financed competitors. Sincerely,
Gary A. Sanford
17708 10th Ave N.E.
Shoreline, Wa 98155-3706
MTC-00007752
From: Alfred Holzheu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Wake up and smell the coffee. We can buy the most incredible
engineering marvel of our day (NT) or even Windows for the price of
a video game. In what possible way has the public ever been harmed.
This insanity (the whole government case against MS) could only be
created and promulgated by entirely clueless lawyers, who have no
conception of what it takes to create an operating systems or what
life was like prior to MS. I doubt that they are angels, but no
successful company ever is. The bottom line is what they have done
to and for the general public and even mankind as a whole. I can't
imagine any possible scenario that trivializes what MS has
accomplished into something somehow detrimental to the public, the
USA or mankind as a whole. Instead of taxing the public (and a tax
it is, since MS must tack on the price of fighting the case to their
products and we pay taxes to pay for the num-nuts who are
prosecuting this case) with this ridiculous lawsuit, we should be
cheering them on. About the only ``remedy'' that I can even possibly
see is the requirement for MS to keep an open book regarding the
various Window API's so that their well-earned and deserved defacto
monopoly in the operating system area does not preclude others from
creating useable and robust third party apps. Even this is a bit of
a fool's errand, as the question as to exactly what an operating
systems is, is in constant flux. I don't wish to pay lawyers forever
chasing an accelerating train. There used to be a Hotel under
construction in my town that we jokingly call the ``Old carpenters
rest home'' because of the length of time it took to build it. I
fear this lawsuit will become the same.
Whenever a lawyer in the government's employ runs out of
meaningful work to do, they can bill a few hours to the ``Never
ending case''. Lets give this up, and stop penalizing MS and
ultimately us by this frivolous lawsuit.
Sincerely
Alfred Holzheu
[email protected]
MTC-00007753
From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
I would not still be a Microsoft stock holder if I thought they
were not a good American company . I think, the settlement should
end as soon as possible.
MTC-00007754
From: Kimberly Helms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Decision
To whom it may concern:
Please don't see my address and figure I'm an MS employee, so
she doesn't count.
I am proud to be a Microsoft employee. I am a single mom who is
able to send my child to private school and be involved in her
school and activities. That's because Microsoft cares about people,
and especially families and children. Last year, they donated
hundred's of dollars, probably more than $1,000, worth of software
to my daughter's school so they could learn on the latest, most
innovative products. My daughter is 6, so her friends and she
especially enjoy the Magic School Bus titles. I am very active in my
community and church and let everyone know I work at Microsoft. As I
said, I am very proud of that. Microsoft makes such a difference in
our community, and the business world. We strive everyday to make
someone's life better. We don't want to hurt others. We want to be
the best. That's what I teach my daughter, to do the best she can at
everything she does. What if her friends' parents started telling me
to tell her to not work so hard, so they could catch up? Would that
be fair to my daughter? No, and I imagine you would never tell that
to your children.
That's what you would be teaching by holding Microsoft back from
being the best. ``If the competition gets better than you, we'll
just hold them back until you can catch up''. That's not the ideals
this country was founded on. ``Be your best'' was told to me
everyday by my Granny who helped raise me. The anti-trust and anti-
competition laws were developed in times for businesses that had
great, expensive barriers to entry. Partly due to Microsoft in some
places, any person with a brain can go to a public library and learn
to use a computer. Anyone could do what we do. Because we have
passion for what we do, we do it well. So don't punish or hold us
back because we have passion and drive. Let us continue to develop
great software and great people, without having to wait on the
competition to catch up.
Thank you,
Kimberly S. Helms
MTC-00007755
From: charles jenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear DOJ,
Having lived through the debacle of the AT&T trial and the IBM
trial, it seems to me that the case against Microsoft is weak,
fostered by competing firms whose products were not of equal value
and whose sales and marketing personnel were weak. In short, the
competition to Microsoft did not have what it takes to succeed. Were
it not for Senator Orin Hatch, I doubt that the case would have been
launched. I discussed the merits of the Microsoft case with an
attorney employed by a dot com company. I reflected upon the fact
that each allegation against Microsoft is something I experienced in
35 years of employment in financial services. His reply was
``Microsoft got big doing it, therefore the case. If Microsoft had
not become successful, no case.'' That seems to me to be unequal
protection or administration of the law.
The case should be closed promptly.
Sincerely yours,
Charles R. Jenner
MTC-00007756
From: DAVID DOLBEE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:39am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Enough already--this boondoggle should never have begun, it's
long past time for it to END. For all the ``sins and crimes''
Microsoft has been accused of, not nearly
[[Page 24949]]
enough has been said and credited about their contribution to our
society, our economy, and the future. If there's free time to
investigate shady situations, start with ``representatives'' who
give themselves a raise at midnight! In the context of the September
11th attack and all it's consequences, while ``normal life and
activities'' need to continue, we have no time, money or energy to
continue pouring into this PERsecution ... and had we been putting
the time, energy, and money into coordinating with Gates/Microsoft
in our defense, is it possible September 11th might have been
avoided???
MTC-00007757
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Justice Department, Please wrap up the current settlement
with Microsoft. As a tax payer I request that you stop wasting the
governments money on this lawsuit against one of this countries best
companies. Only the attorneys , Microsoft's competitors, and a few
liberal politicians are profiting from prolonging this suit. Thank
You. Gordon J Kinzler
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,RFC-822=SenatorFitzg...
MTC-00007758
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:43am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Gentlemen, I feel that further litigation in this case is
uncalled for, and the settlement seems fair to all involved. The
settlement will certainly help the schools train the students in the
use of computers. The settlement also puts Microsoft in the position
of giving many of their innovations to the use of their competitors,
which may tend to stifle further innovations. Also the cost of
further litigation will be a burden on the taxpayers and Microsoft.
I further feel that Judge Penfield Jackson had his mind set against
Microsoft from the beginning of the trial, and there should have
been an unbiased Judge appointed to take over the case.
I am Clarence J. Muth, 125 N.55th Street, Mesa, AZ. 85205.
MTC-00007759
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:43am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
To The Dept. of Justice.
I personally think that the settlement between The U.S. Govt.
and Microsoft should go forward because it seems like a fair
agreement. The rights of the software company to protect its
intellectual property, and the protection from monopolies for
consumers seems to be balanced. To break up the company would not be
in the best interest of either parties.
Thank You
John R. Lowrance
8855 Whispering Oaks
Redding Calif. 96002
MTC-00007760
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is the first time in 60 years as a citizen I have written
to the government about an issue. I feel strongly enough about this
one to write. Please settle the above case and stop trying to split
this company up. You should have better issues to address than to
ruin American Private companies. No wonder they go to foreign lands
to do their business. The courts are the ruin of almost everything.
Roger Baird
Portland, Or.
MTC-00007761
From: SANEE TABASSI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello:
I would like to express my opinion on the Microsoft settlement.
First of all I think suing a comp that brought so much money and has
created so many jobs for this country is totally out of line. You
can not single hand out Microsoft for being the best in what they
do, there are so many comp in this country that have monopoly (Las
Vegas area could be a great example, casinos, convenient stores,
shopping centers, all owned by one persons or one corporation). I
believe Microsoft offer is great and the government should except
that, and let them move forward in this really bad and unstable
economy. Thank you so much for your time.
MTC-00007762
From: GLARP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Association of Retiring Persons
Inc. devoted to creating senior housing that is gay and lesbian
(LGBT) friendly. As an individual I wholeheartedly endorse the
Microsoft Settlement--we need to get on and build America, not waste
time with more litigation. It is crucial that this settlement be
endorsed and passed.
Veronica St.Claire, 310-478-2245, Los Angeles, CA
MTC-00007763
From: mary-johne hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:49am
Subject: MICROSOFT 01-03-2002
To Whom It May Concern:
LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONG--I'M SICK OF YOUR CONTINUAL HARRASSMENT OF
THIS FINE COMPANY--SCOTT MCNEALY MAKES ME SICK ALSO. END THIS
ENDLESS PURSUIT TO DESTROY WHAT AMERICA MEANS--FREEDOM TO INNOVATE-
LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE,
MARY-JOHNE HICKMAN
MTC-00007764
From: Ragnar de Sharengrad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:49am
Subject: Settlement
First, I don't own Microsoft stock and don't work at Microsoft
or any other company for that matter, so I don't speak from a
selfish motif. I find the US obsession with anti trust insane and is
again going too far, all under the disguise of ``what is best for
the consumer''. I remember the Government going after IBM in the '
70s and vaguely remember a decade long fight. What were the big
benefits to the consumer? It is easier to understand regulation of
utilities as their products can be considered necessities in a
modern society. Who is forced to use computers in first place and
who is forced to choose Microsoft operating systems? Why don't they
use UNIX or Linux or whatever is available instead? Why not use
IBM's OS/2? If they can't compete whose fault is it?
To me it smacks of socialism the way the State Governors and the
Clinton Government go after Microsoft. They should be happy that
Microsoft doesn't pull up stakes and move to another country. My
native country is Sweden, where socialistic labor laws went hand in
hand with general jealousy and equal income through repressive
taxation (and still do). The net result has been that many good
companies have either been driven to bankruptcy or have moved
abroad.
I think Microsoft's and the Bush Government's proposed
settlement should be accepted and the company then shielded from new
ridiculous law suits.
Ragnar de Sharengrad
18325 129th Ave NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Phone: 425-483-0862
[email protected]
MTC-00007765
From: Jim Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hasn't this gone on long enough?
Wouldn't it be in the best interest to get this behind us. I
think that it would be a boost in the stock market and the economy
to have this settled.
Settle Now for the best of all of us.
Sincerely,
James Olson
MTC-00007766
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please bring this suit to a conclusion and let competition
settle the score. I am pro Microsoft because I'm tired of buying
products that aren't compatible, poorly configured, expensive and
from companies attempting to be just as aggressive as MSFT has been
accused of being but with a poor product line.
This lawsuit is stiffling the software industry, hurting me as a
consumer as few companies are developing and innovating compatible
products until a settlement is reached.
I made a choice in operating systems by rejecting Apple's
offerings, Linux' offerings and I still use programs that aren't
compatible with current MSFT programs because they work better for
me! BUT,
[[Page 24950]]
Microsoft produces a product that evolves, improves and is
affordable when it does change.
When other companies get their act together and make something
better...guess who'll be curious enough to check it out...me again.
PLEASE, GOVERNMENT, LET ME MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS...IT'S MY MONEY
AND I HAVE SPENT IT...AS HAVE OTHERS ON A BETTER PRODUCT AND
MICROSOFT HAPPENS TO BE THE BENEFICIARY...ISN'T THAT WHAT IT'S
SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?
Sincerely,
Staton Lorenz
President
Half Mile Cycle Race Corp
MTC-00007767
From: Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Selllement
Sirs:
I feel that this judgement or whatever has cost the tax payers
enough and should be settled quickly.I believe that Microsoft has
bowed over trying to settle this law suit for the benefit to the
electronic industry and to the economy of our country.
MTC-00007768
From: ROB FLORY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept this settlement. It is good for the consumer, and
OUR COUNTRY!!!
MTC-00007769
From: WILLIAM KLINE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:56am
Subject: Settlement
Let's stop punishng Microsoft and get this thing overwith. Think
of all the good things Microsoft could do in the way of research to
benefit all of us if they weren't having to spend all these millions
of dollars fighting a few disgruntled businesses who are afraid of
competition, which is after all the American way of capitalism.
Sincerely, William A. Kline
[email protected] or [email protected]
MTC-00007770
From: ROD HALES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:57am
Subject: microsoft settlement
We are sick and tired of the crybabies who want the last pound
of flesh from Microsoft.....the feds settled their case and so did
several states...tell the last few states fall in line and lets get
it done once and for all... over and out.. Thank you... Rod and
Barbara Hales.. Sherwood, Oregon 97140
MTC-00007771
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those in power:
The entire system of ``Antitrust'' law is an abomination, and
should be repealed and eliminated forever. ``Antitrust'' amounts to
nothing more than punishing production because it is production. If
you want a detailed argument for this position, read Chairman Alan
Greenspan's article, ``Antitrust'', in the book, --Capitalism: The
Unknown Ideal--. (Rand, Ayn, editor. New York: The New American
Library, Inc., 1967, p. 63-71.)
Because ``Antitrust'' is in principle a moral and economic
equivalent of poison, we should have as little of it as possible.
Microsoft has done nothing wrong, and is a paragon of production. So
be as lenient on Bill Gates and his associates as you have the
courage and integrity to be. If you have a choice between punishing
Microsoft and losing your job, think of another line of work. It
will be better for the world, for America, and for your own souls.
Sincerely,
Ben Steinhart, M.A.
8699 Kenberton Dr.
Oak Park, MI, 48237-1732
(248) 544-7245 home (248) 435-5353 work
MTC-00007772
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
Sirs:
It is my belief that prolonging litigation is not in the ``best
interest'' of our economy or concerned citizens. I will concur the
agreement you reached tentatively is in the ``best interest'' of all
consumers...so stop procrastinating and allowing these special
interest groups to intervene. Get the show on the road and settle
this case! This is absolutely ridiculous and very costly to everyone
by allowing such utter nonsense to continue this long. Please allow
Microsoft the freedom to innovate! Thank you for your time and
consideration in allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinion
regarding this settlement.
Sincerely,
Frances Leonardini
MTC-00007773
From: Jan Rhees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:59am
Subject: microsoft settlement
From all indications, this appears to be a fair, and adequate
settlement, and I encourage you to validate the settlement decision
and move on. Let this be the end of it.
Thank you,
Jan Rhees
MTC-00007774
From: Bob Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Folks,
I've watched the onslaught against Microsoft for ``years'' now.
Remember when Microsoft ``bundled'' Internet Explorer with
windows??? At this same time Netscape was SELLING its Navigator
Navigator for $50.00 to every individual who wanted to surf the
internet. Now AOL (owns Netscape) YES, gives away FREE Netscape
Navigator to anyone who wants to download it to their computer!!!!!!
Has the U.S. Government ever figured out how many million $50.00
bills have been saved by ALL computer users. Yes, Microsoft inovated
and forced COMPETITION and AOL was forced to give away the $50.00
Netscape Navigator for free. Hasn't the American consumer saved
BILLIONS of American dollars as a result.
If the American consumer has suffered as some have suggested
please tell me how much money I would have saved if both Microsoft
and AOL charged me $50.00 for each new version of Netscape Navigator
or Internet Explorer??????!
Let competition FORCE down prices and let a company like
Microsoft (Large enough to compete internationally) bring revenues
to the United States from around the world. Our deficit is already
to large and Microsoft has NOT added ONE CENT to the United States
excessive deficit spending! Why not show the American consumer how
much money Microsoft cost them or saved them! Most people are not
stupid and what ever you do REMEMBER politicians and government
officials WILL be remembered at the polls...
From Just ONE concerned citizen
Robert H. Powers
MTC-00007775
From: kerryduwaldt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:02am
Subject: In Favor of settlement in the Microsoft case
Speaking as both a shareholder of Microsoft and as a long time
user of many of their products, I am strongly in favor of a swift
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. I feel that competitors
of this great company have brought this suit against Microsoft just
because they have not been able to produce products that are as good
as Microsoft's products. These disgruntled companies have been
wasting their energy on trying to break up Microsoft when they
should have been trying to improve their products in an effort to
compete with Microsoft. I think it is very sad that so much time and
money has been wasted in this no win case. This anti-trust suit is
bad for consumers. Microsoft should be spending their time producing
better and better products for us, the consumers and not spending
their time in court because of a few mediocre companies.
MTC-00007776
From: Tim Sedlack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm very disappointed to see special intrest groups (read:
Microsoft's chief competitors) having such influence on the court. I
feel it's wrong to stifle competition, even for the industry leader.
Microsoft is in the position it's in because it provides (usually)
reasonably priced highly functional software that adheres to most
standards. I critically evaluate software for purchase and choose
based on price/functionality. Microsoft is a consistant winner, but
not the only one. Why
[[Page 24951]]
are you letting thier competitors sway you? Can we expect to see the
same rules applied to AOL--the largest software/service company in
the world? Where are the lawsuits against them? After having
recieved seeming thousands of offers ``Free hours'' on AOL, I can
say that they are more of a thorn in my side than Microsoft.
Tim Sedlack
[email protected]
MTC-00007777
From: G. S. Rana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the MS settlement reached by DOJ. The 3 member
overseeing board makes the settlement tough, and frankly much more
than I would have expected MS to face.
Thanks
MTC-00007778
From: coinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel this has gone on long enough. I say let the settlement
stand as it is now. Get it over with and lets move on.
Ray Harcourt Jr.
669 Stable Gate Ln
Florence, Ky. 41042
MTC-00007779
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I believe that enough is enough. The Microsoft case has drug on
for years now and it is time to settle it and be done with it. The
settlement is fair to all sides. Lets not waste more money and time
litigating this issue.
Sincerely,
Patricia Nicholoff
Edmonds, WA.
MTC-00007780
From: Ricky Loynd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am strongly in favor of this settlement. It is more than
sufficient to redress the affects of any of Microsoft's alleged
anticompetitive behavior.
Ricky Loynd
MTC-00007781
From: Karl Van Blankenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
Please go forward with the settlement in the case with
Microsoft. It would be beneficial for the public/consumers and be
best for allowing the justice system to focus on other matters of
more pressing nature.
Best Regards,
Karl Van Blankenburg
MTC-00007782
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Microsoft:
It is time to end this litigation that in my estimation does not
benefit the consumers and helps mostly attorneys. God knows the US
has more of them than most countries, a dubious honor in my
estimation.
Prolonging this suit can only help line the pockets of
litiginous lawyers, ultimately at the cost of consumers who
suposedly should be the beneficiaries!
Hang in there!
Alberto C Serrano, MD
MTC-00007783
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
The federal government and nine states have reached a comprehensive
agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced liability found in
the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is tough, but
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. The end.
Jerry Harris
5059 Newmans-Cardington Road East
Cardington, Ohio 43315-9609
MTC-00007784
From: Donald Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement is in the best interest of the public.
Microsoft should be allowed to continue their creative strategy and
continue to produce effecetive products which gives pleasure to the
public and empowers the average citizen to produce work efficiently.
Respectfully submitted.
Donald H. Foster
[email protected]
MTC-00007785
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This suit was suspect to begin with, so lets get on with the
business of developing better products and let the market place
decide which is the best.
C. H. Schmoll
MTC-00007786
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing this to voice my opinion. Please settlement the
litigation as soon as possible. I believe that the Microsoft
Corporation has offered a just settlement, we need the
responsibility of our court system to take charge and dismiss any
other suits by small interest groups as the majority have voiced its
opinion for the good of the majority. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Anthony Rim
MTC-00007787
From: Jim Beebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Case
Dear DOJ,
I just want to say that I think the work of Microsoft has been
of great benefit to the economy of this country and they should not
be penalized for making products that do well in the marketplace. If
they had not continued to innovate and improve their products this
computer would not be half as easy to use. I am starting to use
their new operating system XP and it is a huge improvement. Imagine
if all we had was the old DOS system. I am not and never have been
an employee of MS, just a satisfied customer that wants to see them
continue to do what they do so well.
Sincerely,
James L. Beebe
P.O. Box 65472
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
MTC-00007788
From: Needham, James P
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 12:49am
Subject: Time to Move On
As a observer of the Microsoft anti-trust litigation, I must
tell you that as a consumer, I have never been harmed by Microsoft.
The continuous actions of a few State AGs seems to be more about
them getting good press to push their own personal political agenda
that to look out for consumers. Our Country is in a recession, we
need companies like Microsoft to innovate so we can increase
productivity and the value of American products. I am certainly not
an expert but it would seem to me that the current anti-trust laws
were enacted to address the smoke stack industries in a non-global
marketplace. What seems obvious to the average person on the stress
apparent escapes the politicians and the high priced political
appointees. If the Netscape's of the world cannot compete let them
get the hell out of the way. It seems that the government and the
some of the states want to decrease competition and innovation by
restricting Microsoft. How stupid.
CC: Dennis Hastert (E-mail), Don Nichols (E-mail), Georg...
MTC-00007789
From: gtech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone and worry about your own problems,
which there are many.
Craig
MTC-00007790
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:31am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to voice my APPROVAL for the proposed settlement
with Microsoft. I believe it is good for consumers, good for the
competition and good for our economy.
[[Page 24952]]
Further delays or additional litigation will damage both the
technology industry and our free enterprise system.
Sincerely,
John Hankerson
2641 262nd Place SE
Sammamish, WA 98075
MTC-00007791
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
MICROSOFT became a ``monopoly'' by offering consumers a product
that simply beat the pants off their competition(IBM, Apple, Sun ,
Linux to name a few) To this day none of these companies have ever
developed a mass market operating software system to come close to
MSFT. Microsoft then proceeded to improve its basic operating system
to make it easier for the msft customer to access the internet and
have the added capability of having the browser interact with its OP
systems in a simple, easy manner to learn and operate. So far the
consumer is not complaining, not about the bundling, not about the
price, not about the fact that computer hardware mfrs and retailers
have all this great stuff preloaded on their machines so all the
consumer has to do is plug in the computer, follow a few simple
instructions and they are off to do a lot of very productive, or non
productive work, as they can choose to do! If you read the latest
numbers, the number of people ordering merchandise of all sorts on
the internet has been booming, recession or no recession. So far
MSFT has offered a superior product, offers it at reasonable price,
and has made it possible for people of all ages to learn to use the
internet to satisfy new workplace requirements and support new
internet businesses. So what's wrong with this picture? Consumers
are not injured in any way. They are free to buy Apple computers, if
they like, they can buy a machine and have linux loaded as the
operating system, if they like, or java ,or unix or IBM's O/S, if
they like, except that they don't!! MSFT doesnt make the computers,
or any components, all they do is supply software that is designed
to function as easily and smoothly as possible with the latest bells
and whistles that the hardware makes possible. Their complaining
competitors, some of which are much larger than MSFT, are free to do
better, but they have'nt. Have you seen any new browser products
being offered by these crybaby's to compete with Explorer...??? The
MSFT software, a miniscule and continually declining % of the price
of the newest computers, whose prices keep going south even as the
capabilities of the machines are ten fold from a few years ago!
Having done all this, no harm except to non competitive
competitors, seems evident to me and that is no different from the
situation in any number of other industries.
Go to any department store and you will see the same brands
featured in every major store. Why is that not being investigated?
Tobacco companies offer discounts to gain shelf space, so do
companies like P&G, How about those sales of coca cola and pepsi
that never occur at the same time. One week Pepsi, next week Coke.
Hello, does this look like normal competition? You don't see gas
stations alternating promotions with the guy across the street, they
match prices a dozen times a day!!
MSFT has not done anything any other company would not do to
grow and survive competitive challenges. Are they hardnose? Yes! So
what's new? I recall Netscape execss claiming they were going to
develop a browser that would ``surround'' the MSFT operating system
and make it subservient to the Netscape browser?? Sun has been
screaming JAVA for years, but where's the Sun Java O/S to go head to
head with MSFT? Same with Linux, where's the beef? So, let MSFT get
on with what it does best...software that keeps adding ,improving
without wasting our taxes chasing a great company that leads not
only the US, but any company in the world in it's field!!! Are we
upset we have one standard VCR format? Arent we trying to
standardize digital?, broadband, telecom systems to broaden
efficient use and make it easier for consumers? MSFT has done that
with out any GOvt help. Tell the states to look for some other patsy
to try and extort money from and leave MSFT alone. Do no harm to
consumers is the litmus test for anti trust,,,there is none here.
You want to protect choice? Consumers have already chosen ...with
their pocket books...let it go!!
Thank you...a citizen who thinks the DOJ has better things to do
with our taxes!!!
Robert Conti
MTC-00007792
From: LYN GILMER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My view is that the Microsoft Operating System provides a very
large value to computer consumers. I have been using PC's since they
appeared and ``microcomputers'' prior to that. Software was very
expensive back then . Feature for feature, today's software is a
real bargain. Consumers have not been harmed by Microsoft, instead
have benefited from the many useful products given as part of the
package. Also, remember the thousands of developers who can write
software for a Microsoft Operating System knowing that tens of
millions of people are their potential customers. They could not
afford to develop code for many OS's only one. If they have a good
product they will make money and pay taxes. I am a great fan of the
Microsoft brand. They are an example of how great a company can grow
in our free enterprise system.
Thanks!
Tom Gilmer
MTC-00007793
From: mstat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:33am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I just want to go on record as opposing this golddigging
settlement attempt to fleece microsoft. I sit here at my Compaq
computer with Windows XP, using my Microsoft Internet Explorer to
access this website and type this response. To me, Microsoft is part
of AmericTa...a great part. They are family to me. I am upset at the
effort to discard competition, innovation, and the assumption of
entreprenureal risk in my country, all for the unscrupulous receipt
of ill-gotten monetary gains. LEAVE THEM ALONE! Microsoft is as
American as apple pie and a great success story. They have
(partially) shaped the way I live and communicate. This shameless
attempt to extort money is dispicable.
Sincerely,
mstat
Mark D. Statler MD
MTC-00007794
From: Sharon Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is fair as it stands now. This has been
going on long enough. End it and lets all get back to business.
Sincerely, Sharon Wood
MTC-00007795
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Here is my opinion: the DOJ should discontinue wasting the
government's(my taxes)monies on prosecuting or mediating a
settlement. I, as a consumer of computer products, never felt harmed
by Microsoft. The nine states not settling are fishing for money and
the courts should dismiss any actions filed by them. I think the DOJ
should be held in contempt for ``restraint of trade''. One man's
opinion....
Marty Kulina
206. 972.9704
MTC-00007796
From: Bruce (038) Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
Enough is Enough... Settle the case!!... It is an embarrassment
to the rest of the free world to continue to allow states whose
interest/allegence/financial backing is with competitor companies
like SUN, Oracle, etc--drag this court battle on further....
My wife and I are software engineers and we both feel that
Microsoft software is the most user-friendly and supportable product
line available... Unfortunately, companies like SUN didn't take the
time/energy/funding to make the UNIX operating system easy to use
for the common user... It is their own problem that they didn't have
superior enough products to compete with Microsoft's products...
Microsoft did not force people to use their products... People use
them because they are good, easy to use, readily available, etc...
And Microsoft products (operating system, applications, etc) are
fairly priced...
It is unfortunate we have to hear from whiney company executives
from SUN, Oracle, etc--keep droning on and on and on about
Microsoft's unfair business practises... We need to put an end to
this sorry part of US high-tech history, and let companies like
Microsoft get on with their business...
regards,
Bruce and Leslie Pleshko
[[Page 24953]]
Aiea, Hawaii
808-484-5077
MTC-00007797
From: Joe Masters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I support this settlement. Let's move on.
Joe Masters
434 Floral Way
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
[email protected]
MTC-00007798
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
a quick settlement is the best for the consumer, industry ,
Microsoft and Microsoft competitors. If Microsoft competitors had
spent half of the money and other resources (which they are spending
to drag the case against Microsoft) to develope a new product, they
would have possibly come up with a product to compete with
Microsoft. please understand the situation and close the cae ASAP.
Ali Hatami
MTC-00007799
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is a travesty. There is nothing here to prevent
Microsoft's continued use of its monopoly position to destroy any
software innovation they do not own. Microsoft must be deprived of
the means to maintain that monopoly. A number of possible means to
that end are possible, inlcuding: publishing all their source code;
or making all their operating system interfaces and protocols public
on the same basis that internet protocols are made public, i.e.,
with complete documentation and reference implementations made
freely available, for any lawful use whatsoever, including, but not
limited to, the construction of a competing operating system. A
company that truly benefits the public with their systems will
thrive in such a competitive environment, just as Cisco Systems
does. Microsoft's egregious and perpetual contempt for the public
welfare leaves them no claim to anything other than a competitive
environment, if indeed they deserve to continue to exist as a public
company.
Stephen P. Schaefer
Computer Systems Administrator
Masters of Science in Computer Science, UNC--Chapel Hill 1993
MTC-00007800
From: William HAYES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:58am
Subject: I have voted time and again for Microsoft by buying their
software. The only people I know that are
I have voted time and again for Microsoft by buying their
software. The only people I know that are objecting to the way
Microsoft does business is people who want to pirate their software
from me and the ones that think that they should be allowed open
access to hack into it easier. As a result of the foresight and
vision brought by Microsoft,the price of home computers has come
down to the point that every household can afford them and every
child can learn to program them and use them if they have the
ability and want to use them. Many advancement have been recognized
and supported by Microsoft by developing software to support it.
Microsoft is a major source of the balance of payments with
other countries. Microsoft has given the US the a technological lead
that should help keep the US on sound financial footing, but that
financial lead could be overturned by an AT&T type of mistake that
will only lead to higher costs and unsettling lack of leadership in
home computers.
William C. Hayes
MTC-00007801
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice January 2, 2002
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I have the opinion that the Microsoft people were, and are,
innocent anent the manufacture and propagation of their software-
items which are, by very definition, not harmful.
Sincerely from Geoffrey Doman
13900 Cohasset Street
Van Nuys, CA
91405-2501
MTC-00007802
From: Philip R. Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe the Tunney Act should be adopted for the parties
involved. I think that given the circumstances, it is fair and
equitable to both sides. It is more important than ever, for the
litigation to stop and the productivity to move forward. Competition
is good for everyone involved. Microsoft began as a startup company
and had to endure all kinds of competition to get it where it is
today. They provided a need for a product and consumers voted with
their pocketbooks. They did not try to legally ``remove'' or render
helpless their then competitors.
Please move forward with this issue.
Kindly,
Philip Palumbo
[email protected]
MTC-00007803
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies & Gentlemen:
After a tough recession, with many people out of work, it is
HIGH TIME to get this country moving again ! Expedite the fair
settlement of the Microsoft case !
Pilot [email protected] (Gunter Gigas)
MTC-00007804
From: Steve (038) Robin Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:33pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
It's definitely time to settle the Microsoft case. I felt that
the suit was frivolous to begin with and the fact that it has
dragged on for so long trying to cripple a company that has done so
much just completely angers me. I think the message this suit sends
is 'that if you are great at what you do and make a product better
than your competitor then we are going to make you pay.' I really
hope everyone involved can settle this case and move forward.
Sincerely,
Robin L. Lee
MTC-00007805
From: bcathcart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Give it a rest already. Stop the litigation. Without Microsoft
all of those pencil neck attorneys would still be writing their
briefs on a legal pad.
Bill Cathcart
MTC-00007806
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Do America a favor-settle this case by terminating DOJ action
against Microsoft! This litigation has destroyed huge valuations in
the tech stock market, financially injuring lots of
shareholders(direct and in mutual funds) and pension funds. It may
also be responsible for terminating the great bull market and
causing the start of the economic downturn, thanks to Billy Clinton
and his juvenile delinquent administration.
No, I'm not a Microsoft employee or direct stockholder. I am a
user of their products. Are they the best? Probably not. Are they
the PC standard? Don't you know it!
Bill Drake
Bothell, WA
MTC-00007807
From: Fred B. McCarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft established the de facto standards for the software
industry that caused the phenomenal growth and success that astounds
the world and enriches our country. Microsoft is the goose that lays
golden eggs. LET MICROSOFT ALONE! Microsoft continually strives to
improve the quality and value of its products. The people who
complain about Microsoft's leadership are whiners who seek to rely
on politics and lawyers instead of technical excellence and fair
prices. Most of the businesses that now oppose Microsoft would never
have achieved their present status and success without the
standardization established by Microsoft and its unrelenting
pressure to improve software and explore new technology.
[[Page 24954]]
When our government tries to cripple a successful business, to
punish technical innovation, to create chaos where there is order,
to stifle legitimate competition, it is the beginning of the end of
our prosperity! Don't meddle with a miracle! Go and sin no more!
Fred B. McCarty, P.E.
MTC-00007808
From: Chris Blount
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Sirs,
I believe it is time to finish the anti-trust case against
Microsoft. I believe the proposed settlement as accepted by
Microsoft is fair and should thus terminate this matter once and for
all.
I have yet to find even one person in Alaska who can honestly
say he or she has been harmed by Microsoft; to the contrary
Microsoft technologies have been extremely advantageous for bush
Alaska.
D.O.J. should not let itself be degraded and used by inferior
competitors or manipulated by Congressmen from competitor's
districts and states to fight in the market place.
Please accept the settlement now and end this matter for good.
Sincerely yours,
Chris T. Blount
PO Box 503
Nome, AK 99762
MTC-00007809
From: Steve Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments on proposed settlement for civil action No. 98-1232:
Without doubt, I cannot agree more with the proposed settlement.
Primarily for the following reasons:
1. In the civil action, numerous allegations are presented that
are no more than unproven statements of marketing hype and
propaganda. It's no surprise that the statements are one-sided and
ignore Netscape's public comments regarding their planned demise of
Microsoft's commercial viability, which are as meaningless as the
civil action allegations. In the civil action complaints, the
authors excel at presenting misleading information.
2. There is a near-monopoly in PC operating systems, however it,
has been created by competitor incompetence, sloth and greed. PC
OEM's are only interested in what earns them the most profit and
America's millions of large and small businesses cannot afford the
expense of maintaining, training, installing and resolving the
compatibility issues of networking multiple PC operating systems. As
it is, having to maintain separate server and desktop PC operating
systems is more than enough headache and there are strong financial
forces to compel the integration of these systems.
3. Microsoft failed at the outset to enhance Windows Explorer to
have the capabilities of Internet Explorer. The Internet is simply
one large array of networked hard drives. Every computer should be
able to connect to these shared drives. There is no need for
separate ``Explorers'' or ``Navigators''. However, there is nothing
to prevent a competent product from being commercially successful if
consumers and businesses identify ownership value. Unfortunately,
there has never been a sizeable market for a separate ``browser''.
Netscape's theft of the browser concept and attempt to create a
marketable product is something they have every right to attempt,
but this product concept is doomed from the beginning. Microsoft's
Internet Explorer was offered to consumers who wanted to update
their browsing capability, but did not want to update their
operating system; otherwise there is no reason to make it a separate
program since it is conceptually integral to an operating system and
control of the directly attached and networked computer hardware.
4. Alternative operating systems have done poorly in the
marketplace for reasons of commonality, cost of training and lack of
return of investment for businesses. Consumers are an integral part
of companies and gain most of their computer knowledge on the job
and therefore share the same beliefs which they pass on to their
lesser experienced friends. The Apple monopoly could have been
wildly successful, except they chose to maintain high prices and
monopolize their hardware designs. The only high business cost of
operating system entry is hard work, investment and technical
competence. Allegations that a Microsoft operating system monopoly
makes it more difficult to market a competing operating system are
nonsense. This is as absurd as saying that no new products of any
kind can be invented because everything has already been invented.
There are no barriers to marketing any other software products as
thousands of large and small companies have done, provided they have
a viable marketing concept and consumers consider the product to
have value.
5. There is no browser threat to an operating system. This is a
totally ludicrous statement and is not just my opinion, but the
opinion of hundreds of PC experts that have published over and over
again how totally void of technical knowledge such a statement is.
Quoting Microsoft statements to the contrary is simply misuse of
marketing propaganda, proves nothing, and has no basis in fact. Do
you believe everything you hear in commercial TV advertisements?
6. Software that runs on multiple operating systems is no threat
to Microsoft. JAVA, which is not a competitor to the Microsoft
operating system, is being avoided more and more by many PC users
because it is the language of choice of many hackers and PC
terrorists. The success of JAVA is only dependent on its authors
making it a safe and viable product. JAVA's technical competence and
business acumen are on trial in the eyes of the market place. I know
of no reason to run JAVA on my computer and simply avoid all web
sites that try to load it on my machine. Microsoft does not force
any PC user to install their operating system. But, like junk email,
numerous web sites offer to install JAVA on Internet users computers
on a daily basis. Linux, Unix, Beos and several other operating
systems are available, but do not provide the features and benefits
of Windows and will not even be considered by businesses for desktop
computers for these reasons.
7. This civil action has never been in the interest of
consumers. Netscape and Sun have used their political influence to
leverage anti-trust concepts to a new level of distortion. Ambitious
politicians like Bill Lockyer have been financially induced to
support egregious legal actions by companies that have lost billions
of hardware dollars to windows PCs. That is, thousands of small
companies that could not afford $60,000 work stations with
proprietary UNIX software, can now use $3,000 PCs to engineer
products that consumers demand. Increased productivity in thousands
of industries due to Microsoft innovation is the real benefit of a
free market. This is why Sun is losing billions due to the demise of
their hardware empire and why they are in such a panic to get
revenge by destroying Microsoft. They are misusing the legal system
to compensate for their business failings. I am not now, nor have I
ever been a Microsoft employee or employed by any organization
working for Microsoft. I am a mechanical engineer, consumer and
computer hobbyist. For a few years, I did struggled with the issues
of providing computer services to fellow engineers and I learned to
dislike a number of large, arrogant, 3-letter-named computer/
software companies. Their adversarial attitudes and ludicrous prices
will remain etched in the minds of an entire generation that today
prepare the budgets in many corporations.
Steven Black
1916 Camas Court SE
Renton, WA 98055
MTC-00007810
From: Don Holtzinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department Of Justice.
I'm very proud of the way you and Microsoft have worked to find
a solution to the Anti-Trust case, and I think the solution promotes
competition while letting the industry move forward with standards
that will ensure another 20 years of continued technology growth.
This settlement is tough, but I believe it's reasonable and fair to
all parties involved.
Please don't let this lawsuit get sidetracked by special
interest groups or Attorney's Generals who are trying to keep their
names in the public spotlight.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Don Holtzinger
17605 NE 101st Court
Redmond, WA 98052
MTC-00007811
From: RGA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department--
The settlement that you have negotiated with Microsoft is in the
best interest of all
[[Page 24955]]
involved. I urge you to fulfill your promises in that settlement and
defend it in Court, in Congress, and in the press.
It is obvious that the critics are either competitors who cannot
compete in the market without outside assistance, or people like
Sen. Hatch whose influential constituents are apparently those same
competitors.
This is no place for the tainted political process to interfere
with entrepreneurial success and risk-taking.
Gordon Appleman
MTC-00007812
From: Don Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department Of Justice:
I'm very proud of the way you and Microsoft have worked to find
a solution to the Anti-Trust case, and I think the solution promotes
competition while letting the industry move forward with standards
that will ensure another 20 years of continued technology growth.
This settlement is tough, but I believe it's reasonable and fair to
all parties involved.
Please don't let this lawsuit get sidetracked by special
interest groups or Attorney's Generals who are trying to keep their
names in the public spotlight.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donnie Barren
MTC-00007813
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I think the entire persecution of Microsoft was unnecessary,
uncalled for and a waste of tax payers money. The settlement is
another form of government extortion. I do not feel one bit safer,
one bit freer, one bit more capable of making purchasing decisions
with the Federal government having filed this suit and all the
attendant cost to us via taxes and the revenue lost to the
government with Microsoft being able to deduct their legal expenses.
Do not waste another minute of time or expense on this issue.
This entire issue was a display of blatant class envy. The foremost
users of class envy where the communists. Are their any correlations
here?
Allow Microsoft the ability to do charitable works with school
systems they select.
Thank You,
HJH
MTC-00007814
From: Theresa Hancock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
I would like to voice my opinion that the Microsoft case be
settled without further litigation. I think further litigation is
not in the best interest of the consumer, economy, or the industry.
As a consumer, I do not feel damaged by Microsoft, but quite the
opposite, and think that further litigation is only politically
motivated and costly to the American taxpayer and economy.
Thank you,
Theresa Hancock
103 Patrick Ct.
Sunnyside, WA 98944
509-837-8550
MTC-00007815
From: Ken (038) Michelle Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please complete the settlement on the Microsoft case. Please
include my voice with those wanting you to accept the proposed
settlement.
Thank you
Ken Walters
4506 226th ST SW
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
MTC-00007816
From: Brenda Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please accept the Microsoft settlement. Our state and our
country need to put this to rest and Microsoft has done everything
to come to a fair agreement.
Thank you,
Brenda Wagner
4245 230th Way SE
Sammamish WA 98075
MTC-00007817
From: markthome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I hope that the settlement reached between Microsoft, the
federal government and several states will be allowed to stand. Lets
end this thing in one more effort to get the economy moving again! I
am 77 years of age and do not remember a circumstance before where a
few competitors of a company, along with a few quisle-like
congressional representatives, have been able to derail our system
of competition with so little basis. Please do whatever you can to
ensure that deserving contributors get their due, and that those who
want to compete by deriding the deserving get exactly what I feel
they have earned. Nothing.
Sincerely,
Mark Thome, Bellevue, Washington
MTC-00007818
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge:
I feel Microsoft have done too much to settle this antitrust
case. Their products are so good and easy to use. I think it is time
to let the company continue to do their business.
Microsoft consumer
1-3-02
MTC-00007819
From: Daniel Wahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Department of Justice ought to be morally condemned
for even charging Microsoft with the alleged crime of coercing its
very satisfied customers (of which I am one out of many). I am
writing this using my hotmail account, a free service given to
everyone by Microsoft. I am on the internet via Explorer, thanks to
Microsoft. Hell, I can even navigate myself around on the computer
thanks to this company. Because of this (and more) are you actually
asking me whether I think the punishment for Microsoft is too soft?
Hell no it's not too soft! They shouldn't be punished at all. And,
despite mumbling that the company's prosecution was a ``victory for
consumers everywhere'' Janet Reno knew this. So does Ashcroft.
What they both know, but fail to admit, is that Microsoft has
gained its market dominance, not by using fraud or force, but by
consistenly offering better (more popular) services and products for
a cheaper price than their competitors. Is it for their achievements
that this company has been damned? If the new Department of --
Justice-- wants to prove it has a right to actually bear that name,
it should ``ettle'' with Microsoft by first apologizing, then paying
restitution for any money that the firm has lost as a result of this
immoral trial.
--Daniel Wahl, Kannapolis, NC
MTC-00007820
From: Elizabeth R. Baecher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:47am
Subject: Settlement
Had government applied the same zeal regarding US security as
they had harassing Microsoft, New York City undoubtedly would still
have its skyline intact and thousands of lives would not have been
uselessly lost.
Please feel free to pass these comments on.
Elizabeth R. Baecher
Mount Kisco, New York
MTC-00007821
From: John Grubb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The best thing that can happen for the whole country and the
economy is to settle the case against Microsoft. The technology
industry moves so quickly that the government should be more
concerned about companies like AOL, than Microsoft. AOL is a perfect
example of a company positioned to take control of the digital media
business from end to end. Focus on the future, not the past! Many
say it is a coincidence that the stock market dived sharply when it
was announced the first time that negotiations between Microsoft and
the plaintiffs had been broken off. I however think there was a
direct correlation, and the longer this thing drags on, the worse it
is for everyone.
The states that are not part of the current settlement happen to
have major Microsoft competitors headquartered in their states, what
a coincidence. These companies need to innovate and stop litigating.
I find it hard to understand why everyone is up in arms
[[Page 24956]]
over Microsoft, when government backed monopolies like Airbus
Industries in Europe exist to compete unfairly against Boeing. The
US is not able to trade freely with many other nations on this
planet, yet we waste our time attacking our own companies. I can
only imagine how many countries would love to have a Microsoft. Yet,
instead of enjoying such a successful company, our country seeks to
destroy it. What a huge waste of resources.
Yes, my tax dollars and many other hard working American's tax
dollars. Where does it stop? Please do not forget that Microsoft
commoditized the personal computer industry. If we had three or four
major PC OS vendors, then software would cost more, and do less.
Having a common standard to write to is very good for the consumer.
What if we had four different standards for electricity. A company
who makes blenders would have to make four flavors to accommodate
the different standards. Of course they would have to pass the cost
of the extra tools to make the four flavors along to the consumer.
As for integrating into the OS useful tools and utilities like a
browser or media player, I think it is good. Even though Netscape
has failed to technically innovate in a long time, Microsoft's
browser gets better and better even though it does not have to. When
I bought my first PC I spent hundreds of dollars on utilities, that
often did not work well with my DOS OS. When I called for support I
was told it was an OS problem, call IBM. I would rather integrate
than have to spend more money to buy the extras I need from a third
party.
Some food for thought, a good spreadsheet, word processor and
graphics package in the mid-1980's cost about $500 each, for a grand
total of $1,500. None of them worked together and the menu systems
were different on each. Sharing data between them was far from easy.
Today you can buy the same three packages from Microsoft for about
$500 for all three, and they work very well together. Sounds pretty
good to me.
As a market leader, Microsoft does not have to innovate at the
rate it does. That is what happened to so many other software
vendors--they viewed success as a destination. Microsoft views
success as a journey, one that they are always shooting for.
In closing I will admit Microsoft is no saint. They are a fierce
competitor. Yet I believe an America with Microsoft is better than
one without. If we are not careful the next Microsoft may end up
being in a foreign country where we do not benefit nearly as much as
having it in out own backyard.
Please get this issue behind us and move on. . .
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
John Grubb
8116 Pecan Ridge Drive
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
MTC-00007822
From: Susan Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:55am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Regarding legal settlement Microsoft/DOJ
I believe that the lawsuit was very unecessary, considering
other very large companies who have of late become conglomerates.
Time Warner to name a high profile situation. Then we have the oil
companies, and the supermarkets and the pharmaceutical companies,
etc. There are others as well. I feel this was a rather selective
law suit and I certainly feel Microsoft has been reasonable and
responsive enough. For heavens sake settle this!. It is the American
way to compete and create, therefore excell. I am astounded that
this even has occured, and yes I am aware of the circumstances and
this is my opinion. wonder what
DOJ would do to Henry Ford today??
Susan Griffin
19407 Turtle Ridge Lane
Northridge, CA. 91326
MTC-00007823
From: Terry Elder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement between DOJ and Microsoft. I use
Microsoft products because they are good. I chose them. I was not
coerced in any way. When I began using a computer, I did not use
Microsoft products, but after Windows 3.1 came out, I moved and
gradually used more and more Microsoft products. I certainly don't
want to see them broken up. As far as I am concerned, Microsoft is a
great success story and should not be hounded. There are a few
zealots who can't compete, so they use taxpayer money to try to
destroy Microsoft with the law. Some of Microsoft's business
practices probably do need to be modified, and so I agree with the
settlement.
Franklin Terry Elder
8168 Erin Street
Juneau, AK 99801
MTC-00007824
From: Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ
In my opinion, and the opinion of everyone I know, Microsoft
should have never been sued. They provide amazing software that has
made my life immensely more successful and rich. Now that a
settlement has been worked out, I feel it should be accepted as
written and the matter should be put behind us.
Thanks,
Joseph M. Shikany, Seattle WA
MTC-00007825
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not prolong a settlement of the Microsoft case. It is
in the best interests of Microsoft shareholders to end the case as
soon as possible.
MTC-00007826
From: Mike Eddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has done good more for individuals and the US economy
than any other company in this decade. Penalizing them will only
hurt customers and benefit some select competitors. Leave Microsoft
alone.
Mike Eddy
MTC-00007827
From: Vlad Mayzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi there,
Leave them alone! They (Microsoft) do a great job and do much
more good than harm to me, the consumer. Actually, what harm?
Constantly pushing the industry to the progress? If other suckers
can not do any better job, they manipulate the government forcing it
to dig dirt pretending that it is on behalf of the consumers, but in
reality to make the government to fight for them instead of
improving their own technology. Of course it is easier and *free*
but at taxpayer's and consumer's expense.
If government really wants to help the consumers--fine, HELP any
of Microsoft's competitors to make their technology BETTER and help
them RISE to the Microsoft's level, but do not DESTROY Microsoft's
success forcing it to FALL to the competitor's level, otherwise you
will get the same kind of results as communists used to get using
the same approach!
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Vlad Mayzel.
Smart Technologies,
President.
MTC-00007828
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:34am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I AM 69 YEARS OLD AND I AM GREATFUL TO MICROSOFT FOR THEIR
SOFTWARE. THEY HAVE MADE IT EASY TO USE AND LEARN ABOUT MY COMPUTOR.
I HAVE OWNED A COMPUTOR FOR ONLY TWO YEARS. PLEASE SETTLE THE
LAWSUIT SO MICROSOFT CAN GO AHEAD WITH NEW IDEAS. I WANT TO CONTINUE
TO ENJOY MY COMPUTOR. DON'T MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR US SENIORS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,
BETTY J. ROBERTS
[email protected]
MTC-00007829
From: Bob Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
I am completely in favor of the settlement reached with
Microsoft. I believe that this Microsoft settlement is in the public
interest. I do not support further litigation on the Microsoft
Antitrust case.
STOP WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY.
Sincerely,
[[Page 24957]]
Robert Longariello
Taxpayer and Citizen
Laguna Niguel, California
[email protected]
MTC-00007831
From: John Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
As a consumer I have used computers for sixteen years now. I
have a computer network setup between my shop, my home, our patio
area and another house on the property. I harbor no doubt that I am
not the usual consumer in this respect. I have been very happy
however to be able to do this networking without having to purchase
additional software, or to have found the process technically
intimidating. I have found the inclusion of such items as
networking, CD playing, mpeg viewing, Internet browsing, e-mail,
picture viewing and such to be innovation at its best. I have
purchased programs written by others that allow greater graphics
capabilities, engineering capabilities and so forth. Essentially
these programs run flawlessly for me in the MS Windows environment.
I have in older versions of MS Windows purchased upgrades, one
for instance was from Real Networks in Seattle, I think they are a
part of this case also, they offered a free downloadable upgrade.
What a dirty trick, as soon as I had it they wanted me to buy the
full functional upgrade, and their newly installed software kept
activating my firewall software with its attempts to report back to
Real Networks what features I was making use of in their program
without my knowledge. This is pretty much akin to planting a Trojan
horse program and I think the practice stinks. I used their
uninstall routine and it removed most but not all of their code, I
still trap messages with it uninstalled trying to ``phone home.'' I
have not had that problem with Microsoft; in fact Microsoft's
collection of personal information is entirely upfront and with
clear explanations.
Across the same years I worked for Diebold Inc. and spent a
great deal of time using the IBM operating system OS2. In those
years IBM clearly attempted to capture a larger portion of the
desktop PC software marked and they had promotions to that end.
Diebold used OS2 as the OS on many computer systems, and nearly all
of their ATM machines. Diebold regarded me during my employment with
them up until my retirement last year at age 51 as a Fast Track
Engineer. I got to solve the problems our field technicians were
stumped on. We had plenty of problems; Windows was not nearly as
cumbersome, or intolerant as OS2. To amplify the difference further
between OS2 and Windows, IBM and Diebold were business partners; we
had special access to IBM engineers to resolve problems. During this
time I purchased OS2 for a computer at home and attempted to install
it, even with ``inside'' help, the IBM engineers could not make it
operate on the hardware I wanted to install it on. I had in fact
purchased a new 486 system just to play with OS2 on, finally they
told me all we can recommend is that you buy some new hardware that
is on our supported list. That was it, I still have a box full of
OS2 sitting here, and anytime someone wines about Windows I offer it
to him or her.
Clearly, most persons have never had to put up with anything
like what I described above, but I want you to consider with the
time and talent that IBM has, why couldn't they displace Microsoft.
I will suggest that the market place chose the best software, and I
will further suggest that in comparison to what is available the
only choice for me will be Windows. Diebold Inc, was in the process
of dropping OS2 for Windows at the time of my retirement. The
reasons for this boiled down to IBM's failure to put innovations
into their operating system fast enough for the market place. We
were connecting ATMs into TCP/IP networks and VPNs, as a result of
telnet sessions our customers are downloading streaming video and
audio to our newer products. All of this is just a colossal pain
because support for these advanced features is just too rudimentary
in OS2, even though it comes from the granddad of computer giants.
The enormity of gain to productivity and to our economy during
the nineties was clearly connected to the computer industry. It is
also clearly evident that the axe that cut the juggler was the U.S.
vs. Microsoft, assisted by Judge Jackson. I can't help but feel that
more innuendo and misconceptions were furthered during that time
than at any other.
Microsoft may have business practices that need attention, but
if the government restricts them in writing software innovation will
collapse. If the support utilities that are included in Windows
currently had to be purchased separately and worse yet, from other
companies, I would not have networked, I probably would not have
bought at least three of the computers that I currently have, and a
lot of other consumers would have held back as well. I get a lot for
my money with Microsoft products and it sounds like to me the
government would like to see that value stopped. Upgrading software
over the years has often meant buying new programs. Microsoft up
until now has retained backwards compatibility with software wrote
twenty years ago. Apple Computer with most upgrades of their
operating system trash any legacy software.
I would like to comment on Sun Microsystems, Scott McNeally has
publicly stated he intends to litigate against Microsoft forever. I
always thought threats belonged more to the terrorist than to a
business, and might even be against the law. But you see, I can see
why Scott gets so red faced all the time. With the improvements in
Windows NT the electrical engineering software vendors were no
longer locked into compiling their code for the Unix operating
system. Scott built boxes that ran their own version of Unix up
until this time (there are eight versions of Unix, not one is
compatible with the other) and when the software tool people saw the
possibilities in Windows NT and then Compaq and HP started selling
NT boxes for $6,000 suddenly Scott's $30,000 Unix boxes were not in
so much demand. Just imagine what that did for his blood pressure,
its no wonder he gets so red faced when talking about Microsoft.
Then there is Oracle's Larry no doubt would like to keep
Microsoft out of the data base arena as well. Microsoft in practice
takes a product that is way to complex, and costly, and builds a
version that anyone can use, without factory engineers help, and
makes it immensely popular by turning it into a commodity product at
Staples and Wal-Mart. Lastly as I mentioned just before, there are
eight versions of Unix no less. Software transportability between
them is close to zilch. If the Unix people can do that to consumers
it seems strange that Microsoft should have to bear a burden in
maintaining compatibility for all these other leaches.
Yours truly,
John H. Johnston
Drawer 149
Boulder, MT 59632
Fax 406-225-3946
Phone 406-225-9137
MTC-00007833
From: Didier Maignan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The uncertainty is no good for Technology. The settlement is
fair. Please consider the impact on the Worldwide economy, and
accept the agreement already accepted by the 9 states and the
federal goverment.
Didier Maignan
Chairman of ``interprojet''
France
MTC-00007834
From: Thomas Arthur Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This case should have never been prosecuted to begin with. It is
not the business of government tell a legally operating business
what it can and cannot do. It is necessary for the Justice
Department to get out of the way, tell the states that ``object'' to
the settlement to get over it, because it is done. If these states
have so much time on their hand, that they can afford this case,
then perhaps they are meccas we all should move to, because they
have no crime!!!!!!!!!!
www.geocities.com/thomasweeney/
MTC-00007835
From: Richard Poorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ: Give the public a break! Stop spending our tax money and
settle this stupid extended legal action.
I have felt, from day one, that Microsoft have conducting some
undesirable sale practices. But, where was our government watch
dogs. I'll tell you, they were sleeping at the switch. The public
used to be protected from product loss leaders which are used to get
high profit items in front of the unsuspecting consumer. This is
about all Microsoft was doing. When their competition was taking a
licking, they complained to Big Uncle. Now, Big Uncle wants to show
off his
[[Page 24958]]
power and destroy Microsoft. Get real, Microsoft is a fine company,
has brought great prosperity to America. Give them a minor fine and
get on down the road to a strong economy. Microsoft lead us in the
past to great things and will again. I bought 300 shares of
Microsoft in the middle of this mess because I had confidence that
Big Uncle would do the right thing. Tell me you will. Give Microsoft
a minor fine, turn they loose to doing great things for the consumer
again. Please stop this crazy loss leader practice that is going
full force today. The dumb public is getting kicked in the ass.
Banks give away credit cards at low interest rates, just to hook the
public later. Auto companies sell with zero interest just to hook us
later when we pay for the over priced cars. My stores have these
give away items to get me in the store so they can soak me on some
items that are hard to check. There are laws again this practice but
Big Uncle just lets it go on. Stop this practice of selling products
at one price to some consumers and another price to others.
Get our economy going again!
Richard Poorman
2395 Pine Lake Trail
Arab, AL 35016
MTC-00007836
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
In reference to Microsoft and the litigation, I feel that
Microsoft has been very cooperative, not to mention that there is no
other competitor that even comes close to the Microsoft products!
Any further litigation is unjust!
Sincerely,
Lindsey Ford
Southern Critters Sales and Marketing LLC
MTC-00007837
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:12am
Subject: lawsuit
i use microsoft and feel they have done nothing wrong. i can use
any system and change at any time....to penalize a company for
advancements is the wrong message to send to start ups.
MTC-00007838
From: Ray Vardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:42am
Subject: Settle
Let Microsoft conduct its business fairly and without the
federal govt. involvement!!
Happy Trails!! (:) Anne
MTC-00007839
From: Adam Gates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To anyone who anyone who may read this, There is an extremely
gross misunderstanding as to how Microsoft works. It would be much
more effective for a high level government official to DROP all
legal action and just ask Microsoft to create a more competitive
environment. This is the TRUTH!!! Simple and quick. A judgment like
this would turn the economy around in a day. Microsoft would take
the responisbilty seriously and would take a commanding role in
turning things around. Microsoft WILL succeed in whatever direction
they are pointed in so point them at the common good.
Adam Gates
972--742-5465
[email protected] or [email protected]
Please feel free to contact me with any questions on my
comments.
MTC-00007840
From: Ricardo Villar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
It's about time the government (DOJ) stops harassing Microsoft.
Isn't it enough the harassment they have from their competition?
It's a tough world out there, when you don't have the privileges of
being a public servant. Microsoft is responsible for thousand of
jobs in the States and worldwide. Microsoft made computing
accessible to everyone, at a time when Motorola, Apple, Netscape and
others were selling their products to a select group of people who
could afford their prices and conditions. How can you criticize
Microsoft for their policies, when the government policies are, some
times, even dirtier and deadly?
Stop this case at once and dedicate all your efforts in
protecting the States from the internal and external enemies, not
from people who want to make America big.
Ricardo Villar
MTC-00007841
From: Stanley Shoeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let's finally get this case behind us. The proposed terms are
reasonable.
MTC-00007842
From: Risto Raitio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:02am
Subject: Justice and free market economy or Microsoft socialism
(very briefly!)
Helsinki, January 3, 2002
Dear Justice Officer,
I am a (retired ) theoretical physicist who has worked with
computers for 30 years, the last ten years in an international
software company. I've learned American way of life as a visiting
scientist at Stanford University in 1974-76.
May I call your attention to the following points: first quoting
Mr. Ganesh Prasad of Sidney, Australia
--``Microsoft has also had secret agreements with OEMs that
prevent them from offering consumers the choice of which operating
system to boot when they start up their computers.''
--``Microsoft's monopoly profits are the direct result of these
and other illegally anti-competitive tactics.''
--``It is being argued that in the current difficult economic
climate, Microsoft should not be broken up or otherwise punished,
because that will in turn affect the rest of the economy (through a
fall in the stockmarket index, a delay in the recovery of hardware
sales, more unemployment and hardship, etc.). On the contrary, the
lessons of Economics are that monopolies are always bad. They reduce
efficiency, innovation and economic activity. In other words,
Microsoft's monopoly has already affected the economy adversely.''
Microsoft speaks often of their innovations. Most educated
people consider Microsoft rather an implementor of other companies'
innovations. For example, the graphical user interface and the
spreadsheet software Excel. Another example, Microsoft realised the
importance of the Internet quite late. Microsoft's unstable
operating systems (all of them before Windows 2000), proprietary
software and binary file formats have caused high and unnecessary
expenses for Microsoft software user organisations. Of course,
Microsoft claims the opposite. But I'm not against Microsoft, I'm
only against illegal business methods. In fact, a decent kind of
Microsoft is needed! The bottom line is whether the United States
Justice system wants to maintain the free market economy or open the
door to centrally controlled sectors of economy, which are known to
fail ultimately.
Sincerely,
Risto Raitio, PhD
Espoo, Finland
MTC-00007843
From: Larry Ownbey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hi, how are ya?
The simple fact is that free enterprise is what made USA the
great nation that it is or should I say was? Let me ask a simple
question; because Midas makes mufflers does that mean that Ford
cannot make mufflers? Because Netscape makes a browser should
Microsoft be disallowed? Smaller software companies have made a
choice to make programs that rely on Microsoft's operating system.
As far as I know there is no rule or law that says that they cannot
develop their own operating system and programs to run under them.
Netscape chose to make a browser that runs under Microsoft's
operating system. Why in the name of hell should that mean that
Microsoft cannot include the browser that they make as a part of
their operating system. Nowhere in that effort did Microsoft in any
way do anything that would prevent anybody from getting and using
any browser they choose. If the other guy wants to compete they need
to ``make a better whistle''. If they cannot ``make a better
whistle'' then maybe they should consider another line of work!
Microsoft has done some great things for this country and it's
people, I really don't think they should be punished for it. If you
ask me the whole litigation was just done to make a bunch of nearly
worthless lawyers rich at the consumer's expense. For every
[[Page 24959]]
good thing that anybody find in what lawyers do I can guarantee
there are at least 25 bad things. Their sole existence is based on
the ill fate and sufferings of others. Lawyers will destroy this
country.
Thank you,
Larry Ownbey
MTC-00007844
From: K Orum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 3, 2002
United States Dept of Justice
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in behalf of Microsoft. I don't think there is any
reason to break up a company that has supplied us with good products
and good service since personal computing began. I have never felt
``victimized'' or limited by any of the Microsoft applications. I
see AOL/Time Warner and your old friend AT&T as much bigger
problems/threats to the public. I am a subscriber of both of these
services and feel victimized by their underhanded billing methods
and misrepresented services.
I am a shareholder of all three so I don't give this opinion
carelessly or unfairly.
Sincerely,
Karen E. Orum
MTC-00007845
From: tom holzman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am quite pleased the case with Microsoft has been settled. In
my opinion it should never have been brought to begin with.
Microsoft's competitors in the marketplace were simply using
government intervention as an attempt to block Microsoft's superior
marketing skills and products. I am neither connected with Microsoft
nor am I connected with any other software or hardware company. I
use Microsoft operating system software on PC's as well as Apple
operating system software on their machines. I am simply a home
consumer who feels this whole episode is simply another example of
politically motivated government waste excess. As a consumer I feel
the whole prosecution of the government case against Microsoft has
been a huge waste of time and money. The consumer has never had more
inexpensive choices for home computing than under the current/
previous market environment. Please go away and leave these people
alone to innovate and develop new useful products for consumers! If
you want to do something really useful for me as a consumer you
should investigate why I can't get connected to the internet at high
speeds because the last two miles of wire to my house is under
monopoly control by Ameritech/SBC. This behemoth is clearly blocking
other companies from selling me true high-speed DSL access.
This is corruption on a huge scale!
Regards,
[email protected]
MTC-00007846
From: Ralph Baur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
the proposed settlement is reasonable and fair. I totally agree
that the settlement is good for the customers, the industry and
morover it means an important signal to the worlds economy. In my
opinion the settlement is of public interest and I respectfully ask
the district court to honor this in its fourthcoming decision.
Best Regards,
R. Baur
MTC-00007847
From: Chris Boonham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just wanted to take the opportunity to record my opinion.
I believe that the settlement between Microsoft and the federal
government/nine states, is tough on Microsoft, but is fair to the
Consumers and the IT industry as a whole. It is in the interests of
the everyone, including the US economy, for this settlement to
proceed swiftly to it's final conclusion.
Thank you.
Chris Boonham
MTC-00007848
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please, do not this situation continue. I believe an end should
be put to this, and that the present settlement agreement be let
stand with a guarantee that this settlement stand. Continuing to
prolong action against Microsoft will not be in the public/consumers
insterest. This entire action has hurt our economy, industry and the
American citizen. In my opinion, the continuation of this case over
so many months was caused mainly by our pre-Bush government and
politicians.
I think that when the public learns that Microsoft if no longer
in litagation, the response of business and citizens will react with
a positive response.
Thank you...........LillianEibert
MTC-00007849
From: JACK PURSER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:08am
Subject: Settlement
If you don't leave our corporations alone they will be forced
out to overseas countries and more of our jobs will be sent over
there, LEAVE THEM ALONE!
Jack E. Purser Sr.
A Voter
Jack Purser Sr.
MTC-00007850
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe strongly that it is time to settle the Microsoft
lawsuit and move on. The country is in a recession and it is not
prudent to stifle innovation on one of our home-grown businesses.
Microsoft is a business that creates jobs and is a good citizen. The
settlement is fair and the nine states should be made to accept
that. Their interests are merely self-serving.
Madison McCall
Dorothy McCall, Charlottesville, Virginia
MTC-00007851
From: cauvel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would just like to add my voice to the many people asking you
to stop this useless waste of public money and resources. The
continuation of this legal battle can have no benefit to anyone in
the public sector. You are suing a company for bundling its
products, and saying you are doing it for the benefit of the people.
Can I please have someone explain to me how it is going to benefit
me to have to pay for each seperate piece of my operating system for
my computer? So, for one price I have recieved everything I need to
operate my computer and to go online, it works perfectly together, I
dont have conflicts to deal with in case I buy the wrong thing, and
most importantly I GOT IT ALL FOR ONE PRICE! I think that this case
to begin with was baseless harrassment from the government, and with
everything I have read about it, I still believe that is true. I
think that we need to go ahead and settle this and move on. And in
closing, I would just like to mention... AOL/TIME WARNER. Lets apply
the same rules to all corporations, regardless of who the major
stockholders are.
MTC-00007852
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:22am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
End your legal attacks on Microsoft. Accept Microsoft's offer.
The government legal attacks on Microsoft are simply yet again
attempts to penelize those who are successful, while at the same
time rewarding those who are not. That is backwards.
MTC-00007853
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs--
I support the Tunney Act. I also support reducing the period of
copyright protection of computer software (for everyone, not just
Microsoft), with an option for extension if the copyright holder
places source code into escrow. We simply must encourage both
innovation and reuse.
David DeBrota
MTC-00007854
From: Ron Graves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:24am
Subject: microsoft case
To whom it may concern:
I strongly object to the protracted suits against Microsoft. As
a user I feel that
[[Page 24960]]
Microsoft has given me the best possible platform on which to run my
computer. All other solutions (Linux) appear like solutions looking
around for a problem--try to install it as opposed to Windows. As a
former computer programmer, I can appreciate the complexity and work
that went in to Windows development. Finally, as a shareholder I
feel that I and the other shareholders have been punished enough
with the devaluation of the shares since this case first got major
publicity. Enough is enough and the state Attorneys General should
stop as well. Let's get on with the business of making Windows
better and not having a company look over its shoulders all the
time.
Ron Graves
MTC-00007855
From: Lois Tilles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dept. of Justice Representative,
I believe the settlement that has been proposed for Microsoft is
fair and equitable. I support it going forward. Also, I think it
would further endanger our weakened economy to spend precious time,
energy and focus on reopening issues that have already been fairly
settled.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Lois Tilles
[email protected]
MTC-00007856
From: Dan Cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is clear to me that Microsoft is a innovative company and the
envy of most of their competitiors. Many of the entities opposed to
the proposed settlement are either Microsoft competitors, have a
financial stake in the outcome, or simply do not like any successful
corporation. Our country has already spent way too many resources on
this lawsuit which in my opinion is actually hurting the consumer
and our nation's economy by stifling innovation. If Microsoft ever
truly harms the consumer, the market will speak. I urge the DoJ to
accept the proposed settlement and allow (and even encourage)
technical innovation to once again flourish.
Dan Cannon
[email protected]
MTC-00007857
From: Edward W. Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please set this case aside. The settlement reached with the
government should be good enough. Left Microsoft get back to the
business of writing computer computer programs.
MTC-00007858
From: Rex Plent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I'm a Microsoft share holder and I belive that Microsoft has
been good for this country and the world! I believe that the company
was unfairly attacked and that this whole affair should be put to
rest. Microsoft has been good to me and their products are great.
Let's get on with it! The world has more important things to be
concerned about.
[email protected]
MTC-00007859
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to end this injustice perpetrated by a few competitors
who simply cry foul because they can't defeat Microsoft on the
playing field using the normal rules of the game. I am one American
who truly believes that Microsoft did not violate any laws of this
great country. Being a fiercely competitive and relentlessly
intimidating player in the great economic arena of today's world is
correct, necessary, and JUSTIFIED!
Microsoft broke no laws. Let us end this travesty now!
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00007860
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Comments regarding proposed settlement.
Proposed settlement is too severe to Microsoft.
MTC-00007861
From: Marge Seybert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Show me an American made television set.
Shanley J. Seybert
MTC-00007862
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time for the gov't to move on and stop hindering the
productivity and creativity of the software company that single-
handedly stopped the maddness of the duplicity of operating systems
(software companies had to re-write the old code just to make it
available on the different systems instead of innovating), stopped
the maddness of the duplicity of office software products that all
worked differently, wouldn't talk to each other and made computers
hard to work with and limited people to working effectively from
product to product. Oh...by the way, do you remember the price of
Lotus 123, which didn't have a new upgrade (1a to 2 and 2.1) for 3
years.... $395. We now get in MS Office Excel, Word, Powerpoint,
Outlook and Access for less! Quit it. They have innovated, made the
product available to everyone all for a significantly less price. Go
chase some terrorists!
Charles W. Terry
13201 Dodie Dr.
Darnestown, MD 20878
MTC-00007863
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:00am
Subject: Microsoft
Please settle this suit as soon as possible. It is an unjust
suit to begin with. Microsofr is only guilty of being successful.
The states attorneys general and the other companies that are suing
are only being opportunistic. Micosoft is a great company and good
for our nation.
MTC-00007864
From: Snowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir/Madam
I beleave that Microsoft and the American public have and are
tired of this action. I also beleave that Microsoft is one of the
fue companys that has a direct influence on our economy, if this
sort of action is continued the recovery of our economy will be
delayed.
Thank you for your time in this grave acxt of misderected
justice.
Glenn Eugene; Frantz
Copyright Notice: All rights reserved re common-law copyright of
trade-name/trade-mark,
GLENN
EUGENE FRANTZ(C)-as well as any and all derivatives and
variations in the spelling of said trade-name/trade-mark-
Copyright(C) 1969 by Glenn Eugene; Frantz. Said trade-name/trade-
mark,
GLENN EUGENE FRANTZ(C), may neither be used, nor reproduced,
neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner whatsoever, without
the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Glenn
Eugene; Frantz as signified by the red-ink signature of Glenn
Eugene; Frantz, hereinafter ``Secured Party.''
Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives
consent for any unauthorized use of GLENN EUGENE FRANTZ(C), and all
such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
Unauthorized User(s):
(1) grants Secured Party a security interest in, and a distress
warrant and lien against, User's property and interest in property
in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each trade-name/trade-
mark used, per each occurrence of use, plus triple damages, plus
costs for each such use, as well as for each and every use of any
and all derivatives and variations in the spelling of GLENN EUGENE
FRANTZ(C);
(2) authenticates a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor
and Glenn Eugene; Frantz is Secured Party and User pledges all of
User's property and interest in property as collateral for securing
User's contractual obligation;
(3) authenticates a UCC Financing Statement wherein User is
debtor and Glenn Eugene; Frantz is Secured Party;
(4) consents and agrees that said Financing Statement is a
continuing financing statement, authorizing Secured Party's filing
of any continuation statement necessary for maintaining Secured
Party's perfected security interest in all of User's property and
[[Page 24961]]
rights in property pledged as collateral in the aforementioned
Security Agreement, until User's contractual obligation theretofore
incurred has been fully satisfied;
(5) authorizes the filing of the aforementioned UCC Financing
Statement and Security Agreement in the UCC filing office by Secured
Party;
(6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings referenced
in paragraph ``(5{time} '' above are not, and may not be considered,
bogus, and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus;
and
(7) waives all defenses.
Record Owner: Glenn Eugene; Frantz, Autograph Common Law
Copyright(C) 1969.
MTC-00007865
From: Bob Sammons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Uncle Sam,
Please settle this Microsoft fiasco ASAP. September 11th has
been a drop in the bucket compared to what this government debacle
has done to the economy.
Thanks,
Bob Sammons
2000 Sammons Davis Ct
Arlington, Texas 76015
MTC-00007866
From: D. G. Cragar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Get this settled without further litigation.
D. G. CRAGAR
P.O. BOX 142
ADONA, AR 72001-0142
MTC-00007867
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To DOJ:
It seems appropriate that the DOJ finalize the settlement
agreement at this time.
I found it hard to comprehend the concept that Microsoft stifled
competition when they actually were an incubator and catalyst for
the most concentrated intellectual development in history. Sour
grapes has cost all of us too much time and money. Get on with the
settlement and let's get back to more important issues.
Sincerely,
James J. Morgan
Paradise Valley, AZ.
MTC-00007868
From: rufuswon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I approve of the proposed settlement and wish to see it
implemented.
Jeff Ballard
MTC-00007869
From: James R. Wright Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly believe your proposed settlement of the Microsoft
antitrust action is fair and equitable. Your propsal will continue
to allow research and development of new products and technoligies
by the best and brightest in the industry.
I also believe any further restrictions would significantly
inhibit future advances in technical development areas if large
vendors like Microsoft is restricted, just so it will be preceived
``fair'' for other developers to enter the market. Regardless of the
software developers size if their products are actually good they
will find a place in the market. After all didn't Microsoft succeed
in a market dominated by IBM when it first started?
I don't remember the Justice Department going after IBM to level
the playing field for Microsoft.
The unique thing about private enterprise is consumers do have
brains and they will do what's best for themselves regardless of
what is perceived a ``politically correct.''
I hope you will stick with your original decision and allow the
consumers like me determine what is good and what is bad in the
market place, not the courts. Let's put an end to this type of
corporate harassments once and for all!
James R. Wright Sr.
313 East Appleby Avenue
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
MTC-00007870
From: Colleen Chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:28am
Subject: Memory !!!
Hello--
This whole damn thing with Microsoft is stupid ! Way back when
computers were just getting started into home desktops Apple came
out with their OS and wouldn't license or allow anyone to use their
system. Monopoly ?? Several other systems were developed for the IBM
clones, Microsofts DOS among them. Why did Microsoft become the
system in use ?? For the reasons of 1 that it was reasonably user
friendly and 2 mainly it was available to the whole market. In days
gone by when a person developed something that the buying public
wanted he could make a profit and build a business. Now that common
sense has taken a back seat to Lawyerize if a person is successful
he gets sued. Pure male bovine fecal material.
I'm a retired Los Angeles City fireman and have seen bureaucracy
in action big time. The whole message of this deal and the other
many ``do gooder'' issues will do nothing but stifle any incentive
of the people that have ambitions other than being a happy hamburger
flipper.
Cordially and sincerely. Howard L Chapman
MTC-00007871
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:31am
Subject: Tunney Act
To Whom It May Concern:
Please, enough already with hassling Microsoft and Bill Gates!
Bill Gates has done a lot of good for our country with his company
Microsoft! Stop the nonsense and leave the good company and Bill
Gates along already! Just because a few of our government elected
officials are against Microsoft and Bill Gates because of the
brilliant man he is and because he has founded one of the best
companies in the world gives our government NO right to continue to
harass him!
I say to our government ENOUGH ALREADY! Spend our tax dollars on
more important issues in this country, like coming up with a way
STOP THE TERRORIST THAT THEY ALLOW INTO THE USA!
Sincerely,
Mary Chance
20515 East Country Club Drive
Apt. #2243
Aventura, Fla
33180
305-937-1507
MTC-00007872
From: Robert Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:37am
Subject: microsoft settlemant
i think it was crazy to go after microsoft in the first place.
look at what the market has done because of it !. get off their
back, please
MTC-00007873
From: STAN HELENIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:43am
Subject: pro-microsoft
i am a canadian doing extensive work in the states.i find too
much critical emphasis as of late on microsoft by the nine
states..it seems to me that sun,aol and others are lobbying still..l
am very happy with my new XP operating system as well as the
previous others..let the american dream persevere and let microsoft
alone. stan h.
MTC-00007874
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:45am
Subject: Subj: Microsoft settlement
To whom this email concerns;
I do believe that the settlement that has already been agreed
upon between Microsoft and the US Government/States, I believe it to
be fair for all parties concerned. Most of all this settlement is in
the best interest of the American public and the country as a whole.
I am in favor of the courts settling this case to allow our country
to get on with the recovery that is so badly needed. I see no
further litigation's needed. It is time that we as a country get
this case behind us and to go on with the more important issues
facing the nation and the economy.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read my comments
dealing with the Microsoft lawsuit.
Mr. William MacKenzie
MTC-00007875
From: STAN HELENIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:47am
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: STAN HELENIAK [email protected]>
[[Page 24962]]
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: pro-microsoft
i am a canadian doing extensive work in the states.i find too
much critical emphasis as of late on microsoft by the nine
states..it seems to me that sun,aol and others are lobbying still..l
am very happy with my new XP operating system as well as the
previous others..let the american dream persevere and let microsoft
alone. stan h.
p.s. BILL GATES,IN MY OPINION IS AN EXTRAORDINARY PHILANTHROPIST
AND MODEL AMERICAN.
MTC-00007876
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
Get done with this! This is way too long and too expensive to
continue. Had Microsoft been issuing product at an exorbitant rate
then you have cause to worry. Microsoft is and has been attacked
because they got there first! I thought that this was the way it
worked in the US, at least it did for my forty years in business.
John Arnold
Little River, SC 29566
MTC-00007877
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:56am
Subject: Settlement
It's time to end this ridiculous lawsuit against one of
America's finest corporations.
From what I read in the media, Microsoft's offer is more than
fair. This corporation has made the U.S. the leader in computer
sciences, has added to the security of the country, and has done
nothing to be ashamed of.
Time to end this persecution of a fine corporation!
Al Kay, Orlando, Fl
MTC-00007878
From: Ed Schone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a Microsoft consumer and I use both IBM compatible and
Macintosh computers. I use Microsoft software on both types of
computers. Why--because it provides the most advanced features at
prices I can afford. Even on the Macintosh, where there is very
little Microsoft software available compared to the IBM compatible
world, when I had the choice, I've bought Microsoft (or downloaded
free) over the other venders. You guys have done enough. Just let
agreed decision carry on and let Microsoft continue to develop
innovative software products.
Ed Schone
[email protected]
704.573.4177
MTC-00007879
From: Harvey Waxman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What good does it do to protest? Microsoft owns the operating
system world. Why else would a cumbersome, complex, frustrating and,
generally acknowledged to be, inferior operating system prevail?
Could it be that Mr. Gates had the vision to understand that once
his DOS was installed on the vast majority of computers in homes,
courtesy of his arrangement with IBM, he could do anything he wanted
without the benefit of competition?
There is no competition because of stupid and naive decisions
made by Apple computer. But the fact is that there is no
competition.
Harvey Waxman D.M.D.
73 Wright Lane
Wickford, RI 02852-5846
MTC-00007880
From: JOHN BASHAM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:58am
Subject: Re: Settlement
I am writing to your to urge you to approve the settlement with
Microsoft. I am a user of Microsoft products and have felt all
through this court case that I have purchased a good product at a
fair price. Jack Basham ``One of the penalties for refusing to
participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your
inferiors.''
Plato
MTC-00007881
From: James MacLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:01am
Subject: SETTLEMENT
Please do not punish Microsoft beyond the current negotiated
settlement. Business is about competition which include strategies
and tactics that may not seem fair to people who are not in
business.
This entirely DEMOCRAT suit has damaged our economy. Don't make
it any worse.
Thank you,
James A MacLaughlin
1633 Eton Way
Crofton, MD 21114
MTC-00007882
From: Vern Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to thank you for settling with Microsoft. Please
don't let all those whiney competitors dictate what they think is
right for the consumer and the economy when they are really only
concerned about themselves. Your settlement with Microsoft IS the
right thing for consumers and the economy.
Sincerely,
Vernon A. Scoggins
13937 Dovehunt Place
Charlotte, NC 28273
MTC-00007883
From: Ruth Pennock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case. Thank you.
MTC-00007884
From: BRIAN HOLLAND
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:03am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Sirs,
After years of debate, argument, charge and counter charge,
conflict, and inflammatory unsubstantiated claims of wrong doing, a
settlement has been achieved between the government and Microsoft.
It is my opinion that the energy and resources, both human and
capital, that have been exhausted during this period went way beyond
what was required to protect consumers from the abuses of market
domination.
The settlement achieved is fair. The competitive model of
commerce in the most advanced and admired economy in the world has
been preserved. Free market competition incents innovation and
growth, and ultimately advances the quality of life for all.
I urge you to accept this settlement and reaffirm the character
of commerce in the U.S.
Sincerely,
L. Brian Holland
PO Box 353
13091 Kibler Road
Greensboro, MD 21639
MTC-00007885
From: bill shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this ridiculous case ASAP!!!!
MTC-00007886
From: Alice Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that it is essential to our country and our economy that
the Microsoft case be settled for once and all; I hope the most
recent settlement will be quickly approved and initiated.
Alice Allen
MTC-00007887
From: KEN NELSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Why punish a company that has competed fairly on a head to head
basis?
Why punish a company that has kept prices ``LOW'' not high?
Why punish a company that has done so very much for the high
tech industry, this country and the world?
Why punish a company for doing such a good job?
Doesn't punishing a company for doing well send the wrong
message to our children, friends and family?
Thank you.
Ken Nelson
MTC-00007888
From: Robert P. Blaisdell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice (DOJ) Representative, Marzen Group
LLC is a small
[[Page 24963]]
business that integrates software and provides secure solutions for
Department of Defense (DOD), as well as our commercial customers.
Our Corporate headquarters is located in New Hampshire and we also
have a location in Alabama. Our expertise includes supporting and
securing both the Windows-based and UNIX platforms, software
development, and providing turnkey hardware/software solutions to
our various customers. Our customer's requirements are split on a
platform basis as follows: 85% demand for Windows and 15% for UNIX/
Linux.
(By the way, it has been our experience that the UNIX space
within DOD is controlled by Sun Microsoft Systems Solaris at about
92%. Within our commercial UNIX space, it has been our experience
that the market share for Sun Microsoft Systems appears to be the
same. We have also seen that the DOD router space is controlled by
CISCO to the tune of about 96%. If market share is the key indicator
there are lots of other antitrust targets depending how you define
the market space.)
We have followed the case against Microsoft and have reviewed
the DOJ settlement. We agree with Microsoft that the settlement is
fair and preserves the ability of our company to continue compete in
the software integration and security marketplace, while preserving
Microsoft's right to be innovative with their products. Since the
case began, the software industry has continued to become more
competitive place, and we believe this will continue especially
during these economic down turn. The fact there are ten times more
software developers choosing to use the Microsoft economic model and
tools, should not be worrisome to DOJ. This means that many third
party companies, like my company, are betting their futures using
the development platform framework provided by Microsoft, will work
correctly with that framework. It means many jobs for our citizens
and it allows customers to obtain the best software solutions made
in the world. If each software company had to develop our own
framework, much like the current state of UNIX/Linux, the cost and
time to market of products that are needed would be significantly
higher. In some cases this would force us to scrap the project, thus
leaving our customers with inferior solutions.
The United States is known for its innovative capabilities
within the software arena. Microsoft is an important partner in this
space as well as other companies like Oracle, Sun and Red Hat.
Microsoft has significantly invested in Standards Groups, which
benefits all software developers, regardless of their O/S
affiliation. Microsoft's large scale support of the open standards
committees (IETF, UPNP, W3, to name just a few) has helped them to
become even a better corporate citizen within the software industry.
The restrictions placed on Microsoft by your agreement will also
allow us to move past the period of uncertainty which has plagued
many companies for several years. As a company president, I can tell
you that waiting for this legal case to be settled, has had a
significantly impacted our strategic planning model for the past
couple of years. With the case settled, it will allow companies like
ours, to forge ahead with strategic plan, certain that we they are
based on a development framework that is understood and will be
stable for the foreseeable future.
The settlement DOJ proposed, and that was accepted by Microsoft,
is fair and we believe it is in the best interest of the citizens of
the US. I urge DOJ to stay the course with the settlement as
proposed, to remove the cloud of uncertainty over software
integration and third party development plans and to move forward.
Let get on with the business of providing innovative solutions to
our citizens!
Bob Blaisdell--President
M?rzen Group LLC
35 Pine Street Ext.
Millyard Technology Park
Nashua, NH 03060-3213
Corporate: 603.889.9522 Mobile: 603.860.8200
Fax 603.889.9567 [email protected]
www.marzen.com
CC:mailbox@gregg. senate.gov@inetgw, [email protected]. . .
MTC-00007889
From: Punto Info
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:15am
Subject: Domini Prestigiosi
ACQUISTA un di questi 5 autorevoli domini:
AFFARI.INFO IMPRESA.INFO
SPONSOR.INFO SPOT.INFO
LESBO.INFO
E avrai da subito un grande numero di visitatori, senza contare
il prestigio che la tua azienda ne trarrebbe.
Per informazioni: http://www.toprete.com/domain.htm
MTC-00007890
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft
The settlement reached with the 9 states is a big step in the
right direction. I find it ridiculous that American companies fight
each others while foreign companies competing in the same field try
to fill the gap. Microsoft is a pioneer and it is a shame that other
companies which could not catch up attempt to penalize Microsoft.
Who are these people who do not accept the rules of free market ?
and what are the benefits for US companies to continue this legal
war ? Abroad people are laughing when they see the millions of
dollars spent on this purely legal fees. ... What is the finality ?
Certain CEO of losing companies should swallow their ego and accept
the ruling. ...
I expect the DOJ do bring an end to this case against one of the
biggest pride of the USA.
Jean-Michel Menoud
MTC-00007891
From: njcolonna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:20am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TIME TO PUT AN END TO THIS ISSUE. PLEASE STOP NOW AND LET'S MOVE
ON TO BETTER THING TO DO. WE HAVE REVISITED THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE.
I AM CONFIDENT YOU RESPECTS THE VIEWS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS LIKE
MYSELF WHO WISH FOR OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO ACT WITH CARE ! PLEASE
CEASE ANY FURTHER ACTIONS WITH GOING FORTH WITH A CASE SETTLEMENT
REVIEW.
SINCERELY, NORM COLONNA 440 237 4581
MTC-00007892
From: LotusInn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:28am
Subject: We support the efforts of Microsoft and its effect on our
success as a company and personally. We t
We support the efforts of Microsoft and its effect on our
success as a company and personally. We think that Microsoft has had
a tremendous benefit on our nation by enhancing people's
productivity.
This keeps inflation down. We see no need for this unnecessary
litigation. We realize that Microsoft's software and innovation has
made our life better.
MTC-00007893
From: philip.lindsey@na. biomerieux. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Please let it be known as part of the Public Record that I am in
favor of a full settlement of this case in favor of Microsoft. We
have better things to do in this country than to penalize a
successful organization that is a backbone of our economy. Please
stop this madness.
Philip M. Lindsey, C.P.M.
bioMrieux, Inc.
Hazelwood, MO
MTC-00007894
From: Mark E Fogg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sir:
It is now time to settle the Microsoft case. Microsoft is one of
the leading companies in the tech field. You must realize that the
companies fighting Microsoft have a vested interest in causing the
company trouble. The states attorney generals still holding out are
more interested in enhancing their political careers than anything
else. Settlement of this case with the current solution is the best
option.
Mark E. Fogg
MTC-00007895
From: Michele Acerra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT.
Ladies or Gentlemen.
I understand that the D.O.J. is accepting comments on the
``Microsoft proposed settlement''.
My opinion is that the proposed settlement is fair and that
should be enforced. I believe that all the States should accept it
and in fact
[[Page 24964]]
I believe that they should not have entered in the litigation since
this was, if any, a federal offense and was already prosecuted by
the D.O.J. Although undoubtedly there were abuses by Microsoft of
their technological and commercial position, I believe that it is
time to move on and that freedom of innovation has to be respected
and protected.
Sincerely,
Michele Acerra
MTC-00007896
From: Robert Dreyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft.
It seems that so called lidigation into the Microsoft law suit
has become no more than an extortion on the part of a bunch of
greedy people who use the excuse of ``were only thinking about whats
best for the people''. I don't think any of the Attorney generals
whether they be Federal of state have any other reason for the suit
except its a place to shake a Co. down for the money All these law
suits are just for the money be it greedy lawyers or state and
federal offices. Get off microsofts back and let them go on about
there business. It seems if a Co. has some smart people and is
innovative we can't have that, we have to bring them down to our
level. Thats the way people in government work any body with brain
doesn't stand a chance there is no room in government for a thinker.
Sam Spade
MTC-00007897
From: Joseph Maccaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:35am
Subject: complete the agreement
Sirs:
We urge the DOJ to end the Microsoft case and implement the
recent government-Microsoft agreement. It is time to direct DOJ
energy to other critical matters.
Mr & Mrs J. Maccaro
154-61 22 Ave
Whitestone NY 11357
MTC-00007898
From: Kenney, George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:38am
Subject: Opposition to Microsoft Settlement
I strongly oppose the Microsoft settlement because the parties
harmed by the business practices are not compensated by the proposed
settlement.
1) Low income school district are not the customers who
purchased Microsoft products. The proposal to only provide relief to
low-income schools, as opposed to all schools is a Robin Hood feel
good approach to the problem. As a consumer who has been required to
purchase Microsoft products, both stand alone and pre-loaded by the
manufacturers of the PC's I have purchased, my children do not go to
low income schools and therefore will derive no benefit from the
settlement.
2) Competitors of Microsoft will be further harmed by being
excluded from selling products to the schools which will be flooded
with Microsoft products as a result of the settlement. The damage to
these competitors will actually increase as a result of this
settlement.
I would like to see this settlement be rejected for the reasons
mentioned above.
sincerely,
George Kenney
1304 Sequoia Rd
Naperville, IL 60540
Phone: + 630 541 8628
Fax: + 630 541 8204
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
MTC-00007899
From: Donna (038) Gary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
To the DOJ. It is my opinion that you should end the battle with
Microsoft and go forward with the settlement.
Personally I believe the suit was wrong from the get go. We need
more innovative companies like Microsoft. They make a good
product,market it well, and make money doing it. This gives people
jobs that provide the income to help stimulate the economy. When
Microsoft raises their prices to help pay the settlement who gets
hurt? Us the people your ``protecting'' that's who. Open and free
competition is what drives a market, not the courts.
Thank you for taking the time to read my views.
Gary Chierici
MTC-00007900
From: Daviduk, Matthew
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 8:41am
Subject: Comment
If not for Microsoft, where would we be today? The settlement is
fair. For the goodness of the technology world and the consumers out
there, let it be settled.
Is there going to be the same lawsuits against companies like
AOL?
The software industry would self-destruct if Microsoft goes
away. . . . But if I were Bill Gates, I would say ``Fine, you don't
appreciate my contributions . . . then Good Bye''
MTC-00007901
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:42am
Subject: Settlement
I think that it is a bunch of c------ for a company having to
share with others who have been sitting on their duff what they have
achieved with their efforts. If I were Bill Gates I'd tell them to
go U know where.
MTC-00007902
From: Arnold(u)Agre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I as Microsoft investor and user have been concerned about
antitrust suit against Microsoft for some time. While Microsoft has
become more or less the standard for their operating system and
personal computer software, they earned it by providing innovative
products. I believe I as a consumer have benefited from what
Microsoft has done over the years.
The Department of Justice has spent millions of tax payer
dollars over the years prosecuting a case that I as a consumer feel
was unnecessary to begin with. Microsoft has spent millions of
dollars defending themselves. This money could have been used for
more R&D or made Microsoft more profitable which would have enhanced
the value of the stock in my portfolio. I think it ridiculous to
punish a company because they have been successful.
The uncertainty caused my this litigation needs to stop.
Microsoft has agreed to a settlement that I think goes far beyond
what was required. I think it is in the public interest that the
case be settled with the terms that have been agreed to by the DOJ
and Microsoft.
Arnold Agre
8762 Gray Fox Dr.
Evergreen, Co 80439
MTC-00007903
From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
Watching MS behavior for years I do not favor a settlement as
they have destro yed what once was a very competitive marketplace.
The unethical behavior t hey have shown should not be rewarded with
a slap on the wrist.
Charlie May
MTC-00007904
From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Dan Van Fleet'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>;
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>;
[email protected]>; [email protected]>;
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:01 AM
Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
Hi,
I'm from Ohio, one of the states that wimped out on the
Microsoft case. I stand and applaud you all for not stopping without
a real fix. I use OS/2, Linux. Of course I'm forced to use Microsoft
products in many
[[Page 24965]]
instances. I have noted that not only is OS/2 superior to all
versions of Windows including XP, I believe that Microsoft used
unfair monopolistic tactics to quash OS/2. (The psudo 32 bit
extensions that Word required, which broke OS/2 in the early 90's
would be one of them)
I was very happy with Judge Jackson's understanding of the
industry, it was the FIRST time in history that I thought a Judge
had a clue about the IT industry. Depressingly, he let Microsoft get
the best of him, (his temper had to have been raised due to the lies
MS told in his court, which were proven to be lies in his court) and
he spouted of when he shouldn't have.
Anyway, Keep up the good work, stand your ground. BTW, I've also
contacted Betty Montgomery (AG-Ohio) to express my displeasure with
their actions.
Dan Van Fleet
Springfield, Ohio
[email protected]
Standard disclaimer: My E-mail address is for communications for
and between myself and the address list of this original e-mail
only. It is not for sale, rent, trade, barter, or any other purpose.
You have not right to give, sell, trade, or otherwise transmit it,
without my consent.
MTC-00007905
From: David Storm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is crime to continue to let the Microsoft
competitors that can't compete in the marketplace to continue to
hound Microsoft in the courts. What has started as an argument over
whether Microsoft could enhance their product by incorporating a
browser, has degenerated into ``we don't like them because they are
so successful, or so competitive, and therefore we must hamstring
them''.
I think it is fairly clear that Microsoft has sparked the
current technological revolution. Remember it was just 8-10 years
ago that we felt our technological economy would be surpassed by the
Japanese. What has happened?. Obviously, without government
inference in the marketplace, good old American ingenuity came
through again. I believe I am getting a better product for less
money because of Microsoft.
Settle the case without killing Microsoft. As a consumer I don't
want to have another ATT-like breakup.
David Storm
MTC-00007906
From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``John Losse'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 5:43 PM
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement is not strict enough and does not
limit Microsoft business practices. I believe that they should be
split up and the soft ware and operating programs should be separate
companies.
John Losse
668 Wakefield Rd.
Goleta, CA 93117
MTC-00007907
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE settle the Microsoft litigation as negotiated. This has
gone on long enough. It is time to put this behind us and move on.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
MTC-00007908
From: david schofield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sir:
I urge you to go through with and approve the settlement
approved by the DOJ and Microsoft.
The operating system is so inexpensive relative to what you get,
it is hard for me to relate to the statement that Microsoft charged
too much.
Please end this nonsense.
David Schofield
7675 Classic Way
Atlanta, Georgia 30350
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00007909
From: Richard A. Beers, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear US Department of Justice Representative:
I find the Microsoft settlement to be a good one that is fair to
all concerned parties. I would urge the DOJ to proceed with the
settlement and NOT to pursue further litigation. Thank you for
considering my views.
Sincerely,
Rich Beers
Richard A. Beers, MD
Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology
SUNY Upstate Medical University
Syracuse, NY 13210
phone 315-464-4720
email [email protected]>
MTC-00007910
From: Larry Rehg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to stop the litigation against Microsoft and get on
with the important things in our country, like getting rid of those
forces that want to topple our way of life and government. It's
obvious to me that those who want to prolong this debacle are just
looking for a big ``pay check'' and don't give a darn about the rest
of the citizens.
We know you're powerful, so you don't need to prove it by
continuing this maddening attack on private industry.
Larry M. Rehg
Plano, Texas
MTC-00007911
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
When we had nothing better to do, it was fashionable to blame
Microsoft for the world's ills. We have lived through Sept.11th, so
with thanks to G-d, let's get on with living and once again smile
when we read the rising stock market prices. Settle the damn case!!!
MTC-00007912
From: Gale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam--
I am writing you to let you know my opinion about the Microsoft
pending settlement. The courts need to do whatever possible to see
that this settlement goes through. Microsoft has done some things
that may have hurt competition, but the consumers have done nothing
but benefit from their products and practices. Consumers are being
hurt so much more by all the litigation that is going on. What
Microsoft has done for the consumer is force all software companies
to make their products compatible with each other, make them easier
to use and offer more features. The monopolistic practices may have
hurt competition in the long run, but us consumers are much better
off right now. The only people really standing to benefit from
further litigation and/or a more stringent ruling against Microsoft
is Microsoft's competitors. If this is truly a case to protect
consumers, then protect us by allowing this settlement to go through
and forcing other states not signing it to settle quickly. If
competitors' products are as good as what Microsoft produces, let
the capitalistic marketplace benefit these companies. Having the
government assist them in gaining market share will not benefit
consumers.
Thank you,
Gale Dahlager
Co-Owner (and bookkeeper) of Razor Rock Racing
(bicycle component manufacturer)
MTC-00007913
From: George Dziuk Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
I would strongly urge you to settle this matter on terms
favorable to Microsoft. Without companies like MS, the future of
this country's ability to compete and lead in important economic
areas will be severely restricted.
I grant anyone the argument that there are warts all over
Microsoft but they pale in comparison to the great good that MS
brought to the computer industry years ago when a standard operating
system didn't exist and those, like myself, who were into the infant
personal computer craze wondered how anyone outside a big company
could ever use one? It was too hard to buy a CPM based machine like
I did then watch things go over to DOS and then wonder if Apple was
going to really be ``it'' after all.
[[Page 24966]]
DOS did make it and the rest is history. Without Bill Gates
imposing the industry standards, regardless of whether anyone agrees
with how he did it, this country would still be doing things with
pen and paper on ledger sheets.
George L. Dziuk Jr.
MTC-00007914
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not belive in more litigation. The settlement is good and
fair for all. Thanks,
Carlos Diaz
MTC-00007915
From: John Kerr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It appears that the settlement allows for benefits to
organizations that would not normally recieve benefits. Additionally
the heightened awareness of the issue should preclude these actions
in the future there by putting the issue to rest. Now is not the
time to further weaken our economy by adapting the rules to favor a
few.
I think the Government would be better served by applying its
resources to areas where help is truly needed such as airport and
border security and the rights of individuals trying to access our
Country.
Regards,
John Kerr
MTC-00007916
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to complete this settlement and get on with other
business. In my mind most of the allegations were unfounded to begin
with, and the government was overzealous in it's pursuit of
Microsoft.
James F. Ashbaugh
MTC-00007917
From: Raymond Le Blanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:03am
Subject: Settlement
I want to suggest that the DOJ accept the settlement terms as
proposed by Microsoft as being fair and equitable to the consumer
public.
With warmest regards,
Ray Le Blanc
MTC-00007918
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
Can we please put this matter behind all of us so we can get on
with better things?
As a consumer, Microsoft has revolutionizd my personal and
business life. I never felt they cheated me on the prices of their
products. Moreover, it appears these anti-trust actions were brought
not for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the
competititors and a bunch of attorneys who wanted to advance their
careers.
Even the class-action suit is a sham. How can an agreement to
drop the suit in exchange for the company making a contribution to
charities be of benefit to the class of plaintiffs the suit was
originally designed to benefit? As a stockholder of many years, the
Company has been very good to me, and I have no apologies. That's
what our enterprise system is all about.
Robert G. Saliba
MTC-00007919
From: jack engel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:07am
Subject: settlement
Dear DOJ,
The settlement with Microsoft is more than fair to the public.
Please don't let the special interest groups and wanna-be Microsoft
competitors get in the way of progress, and innovation. Microsoft
has done far more good for this country than any opther firm I can
think of.
John A. Engel, Jr.
Susan C. Engel
small shareholders
Jack Engel
82 South Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
203 966-7576
MTC-00007920
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
May I add my voice as you consider the settlement of the
Microsoft case. The suite brought against Microsoft and subsequent
judgment was the beginning of the recession we find ourselves in at
present. Please settle this matter as presented by Microsoft so it
serves to lead us out of the recession and on the road to recovery.
Our Congress is dragging it's feet. The Department of Justice can
make a major contribution in moving our economy forward by rendering
a timely decision.
Lee Morrow
MTC-00007921
From: vera reitmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:17am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
WILL YOU PLEASE SETTLE THIS CASE ASAP!! IT IS COSTING US MONEY
AND THE ECONOMY NEEDS A BOOST!!
SINCERELY, V. REITMEIER
MTC-00007922
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:11am
Subject: I like my Microsoft Stuff
I see no problem with Microsoft and its operations. It is easy,
quick and convienient.
Don't mess with Microsaoft !!!
Axel Henri
MTC-00007923
From: Tom Collison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the judgement imposed on Microsoft as it now stands,
is fair. In my opinion, futher litigation delays implementation of
the present agreement. Microsoft is an aggressive but innovative
company whose developments have driven the entire industry rapidly
forward.
Thank You,
Tom Collison.
MTC-00007924
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:11am
Subject: (no subject)
i feel that microsoft has done nothing wrong and this whole
affair is a sham.
MTC-00007925
From: anthony vorias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:13am
Subject: Settlement
Dear Sirs
I'm In favor of settling the Microsoft case as soon as possible
for the following reasons:
1. What we have is a solid American company that should continue
to do world wide business and not be ham-strung by spending millions
on non productive defense of their case. Put that revenue and effort
to positive future use.
2. The products provided are productive and are at a fair price.
3. Settlement was to provide computers & software to schools.
Lets do it but modify the deal. 50% of the settlement products will
be Microsoft's and the other 50% in Dollar value will be paid of by
Microsoft for other manufacturers products and software. i.e. they
can buy Microsoft, Apple, Linus etc, etc. etc WHATEVER THE SCHOOLS
CHOOSE!!![ Microsoft will pay up to 50% of the settlement fee] Let's
get these kids working with the technology of the future!! T. Vorias
MTC-00007926
From: Robert Sori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to comment on the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. I use Windows, and several of the other products that
have abused the legal process to try to defeat Microsoft in the
courtroom.
Windows is a great operating program that comes with several
basic programs, The ability to surf the net, write a note, listen to
an music file.
Do you really think the consumer benefits from getting nothing
in the package, and having to buy add-ons from day one.
If I use my computer for graphics, the included ``Paint''
program is inadequate. But it's inclusion is just fine if my kids
want to play with it. The same is true for ``notepad'' it is simple
a basic way to type a note, not some conspiracy to destroy
Wordperfect. And as for ``Internet Explorer'' has anyone installed
Netscape, why can Netscape assume after installation that it is the
default program for surfing the internet, and that is fine. Isn't
this an unfair practice?
You can not include every program that exists in the Windows
package, and
[[Page 24967]]
excluding one over another is bound to effect the company not
selected.
The Government should not be in the business of siding with one
company over another. And like the supposed cigarette settlement,
This trial will only enrich some small group of lawyers. I have
several checks for .75 or .60 cents, my portion of a multi million
dollar credit card company trial, The Lawyer who though up the
lawsuit gets 20 to 30 percent of the total, while the supposedly
injured parties get literally pennies. This is your great profession
at work, this is how your efforts help the injured.
But I doubt any effort will be made to insure that settlement
money is fairly distributed, and Lawyers don't walk away with
millions while the litigants get pennies.
What's next?
Why don't you DOJ people starts to look at the buggy whip
conspiracy, how Detroit industrialist, worked to create the
automobile, and destroyed the leather industry giants. Or how
electricity destroyed the candles makers, get real people, move on.
Robert Sori
7716 Robinglen Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89131
MTC-00007927
From: Garron (038) Anita Riechers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Enough is enough. The settlement reached is equitable for all
parties. As a consumer, I am satisfied. Call it a done deal and move
on to something meaningful.
Garron Riechers DDS
MTC-00007928
From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:21am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ--
Come on guys...it's settled. Let's get on with getting on. If
this case is continued, you are starting to look foolish. Any
further consideration by DOJ against Microsoft will further show how
a few individuals in your department has a personal vendetta against
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
Let American Capitalism and Democracy work....get out of the
way.
Jim Renfrow
2400 Columbine Lane
Montrose, CO 81401-5646
[email protected]
(970)-249-6511
PS. I'm a 56 year old who has been a registered Democrat all my
life and have never voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate.
MTC-00007929
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:27am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
Believe that it is the public and the government's best interest
that the above be expedited ASAP with minimal restrictions on
Microsoft's ability to compete in marketplace. DOJ should remember
and learn from similar efforts in the eighties to restrict IBM which
came close to wiping out that company. Legal efforts at restricting
operations in this area are usually doomed to failure because of its
nature.
J. Kahn
Redding, CT
MTC-00007930
From: John Koval
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft
The government needs to get out of the free business
environment. Microsoft is what every American is working for, the
American dream! Stop the wining competitors of Microsoft and tell
them to put their wasted efforts into their business and compete in
the free business world. The handcuffs should be taken off
Microsoft. Stop wasting the tax payers money. Tell Sun, Oracle and
the rest of them to compete on the business platform or choose
another business to pursue. I have strong competitors in my business
field and I am wondering if the DOJ is going to fight my battles.
Shame on the politicians using this issue for additional press time
for their own personal gains. It is time to put an end to this
nonsense!
John Koval
MTC-00007931
From: Cyril Paciullo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I personally think that Microsoft do excellent software and
competitors should be ashamed to give so much efforts in the
destruction of this company. Without Windows, most of these
competitors wouldn't even exist. I agree that Microsoft, due to
businesss reasons, made some hard choices in some of its designs but
companies such as Netscape chosed to take their time to anoy
Microsoft and not to try to improve their software.
Cyril Paciullo.
MTC-00007932
From: Marjorie M. Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft very well maybe a powerful company and top in computer
stuff, but let me tell you what happened in my home some years ago.
My son was having trouble with his microsoft windows program and
wanted to change so we went to a local computer store and bought OS
(I don't remember what version it was) he wiped the computer clean,
reformmated the hard drive and install OS--What a mess we ended up
with, the computer kept freezing up and when it didn't there wasn't
anything you could do that was compatible with anything else, so OS
got the boot and Microsoft windows was reinstalled, there isn't
enough competition out there that is useable for the computer
dummies like me to use anything but Microsoft Windows. I realize
there are those that say if there was anything else available they
wouldn't use Microsoft, seems to me like those that want to cut down
Microsoft just are not thinking beyond the end of their nose, they
want to make demands that could very well be unreasonable, and they
do have the money to go with another system so why don't they just
do it and in so doing would help build a network of competition for
Microsoft, why should us commoners have to suffer at some nerds
expense? I just don't understand why if someone doesn't like a
product instead of saying one company is all wrong they just don't
find another brand to use and keep their big fat mouths shut! Why
don't they go buy Macs' and use that system? Personally I don't like
Navigator, I found it to be not! user friendly like windows is and
it got uninstalled from my computer in nothing flat!
The settlement that the DOJ agreed to should be the final thing
and these other AG's should be told to deal with it and quit acting
like they are ``God's gift to the earth and know what everyone
wants'' they don't! they just want money to spend on some pet
project that won't get financed without the Microsoft money.
Thanks for listening to me vent.
[email protected]
MTC-00007933
From: Gerald Weston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:32am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Its time that this thing was ended. It should never have
started. This is nothing more than an example of how ``bought and
paid for'' senators (i.e. Orin Hatch) are brought into the
competitive arena to give a competitive advantage to companies that
cannot succeed on their own. Market forces will find the proper
balance if everybody leaves them alone. Microsoft does not have any
sort of the competitive edge that IBM did with the mag-card
typewriter.
MTC-00007934
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THIS ANTITRUST CASE AND THE SETTLEMENT
SEEMS FAIR. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO END THIS CASE AND MOVE
FORWARD INTO A POSITIVE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT.
INGEBORG TESSNER
MTC-00007935
From: Joseph Wages
To: DOJ Microsoft
Date: 1/3/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Tunney settlement brings this matter to a close as fairly as
can be expected after all the effort that went into the trial Anti-
trust laws are for the benefit of the consumer not competitors. This
settlement should be approved so we can get on with the business of
technology.
Joseph E. Wages
1813 Cliffside Drive
Pfafftown NC 27040
[[Page 24968]]
MTC-00007936
From: William Oneil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir: I'm glad you settled the Microsoft case. Its been a major
drag on the economy, in my opinion one of the main causes of the
recession we're in. I'm also glad you did not require Microsoft to
leave a lot of programs out of windows. Its already hard enough to
use, without having a bunch of restrictions on including programs
that will make users lives easier.
Bill ONeil
[email protected]
MTC-00007937
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel Microsoft as a company has gone through enough. Now it is
time for the Government and States to settle this case and let Bill
Gates get back to business. 911 proved to the world that as a people
we can come together regardless of our differences and get the job
done, now is the time to do so in this case. Lets think of all the
contributions Microsoft has made to the economy and the computing
industry and let these guys and gals get back to work and make the
USA even stronger.
MTC-00007938
From: visionmt@ mail.msy.bell south.net@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
It is time for the Microsoft vs. DOJ litigation to end. In the
best interest of our free enterprise system, and therefore America,
the settlement in the Microsoft case must be accepted. What if
Microsoft existed in another country? How dissimilar would our
economic independance be if we were in a position in software
capabilities as we are in our energy situation to the ``Oil
Cartel?'' How much of a joke would it be if we tried to ``rein in''
a ``software cartel'' from another country?
It's time to end this silliness!
Cordially yours,
Kenneth R. Parker
MTC-00007939
From: Wagner, Joyce, CIV, 164 CEGS, DE
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What a shame the government has spent so much time and money to
go after a company that has an operating system that just ``can't be
beat''. If there is a better option from any other company, let
``them'' come up with a marketing strategy and present it to the
public just as Microsoft has done.
Bill Gates started this company with nothing--free enterprise at
it's finest! Let all the other Bill Gates comes forward if they have
something better to offer--until then, the government needs to get
out of the business of running Microsoft's business and wasting
taxpayers money.
I wonder how many of these people who are so against Microsoft
have uninstalled the Windows system from their computer and
installed another operating system--
Joyce B. Wagner
[email protected]
MTC-00007940
From: R Thomsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement
PLEASE be done with this stupid and harrassing suit against
Microsoft. This country is based on initiative and free enterprise.
Because one firm is able to supply what the public wants is no
excuse for the competition to run to the Govt. and cry unfair. Let
them instead improve their products and compete. A settlement has
been reached, let it be so.
Roy A. Thomsen
MTC-00007941
From: Dorothy MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to setle this. I am for the settlement aggreement.
Dorothy MacDonald
MTC-00007942
From: Joe Giunta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
An agreement has been reached that exceeds what the Appellate
court had mandated. It is time for the federal and state governments
to resolve this conflict that has actually harmed many more people
than it ever intended to help.
MTC-00007943
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:40am
Subject: (no subject)
I am in favor of the settlement.
MTC-00007944
From: liles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs:
I would certainly support the earliest settlement of the case
against Microsoft. In the light of current economic conditions the
advantages that Microsoft had in the past have largely evaporated.
Let's get back to business!! Microsoft is a very valuable asset in
our economy and the continued uncertainty in the markets need a
settlement very important.
Jerry B Liles
1009 East Sixth
Alice, Texas 78332
MTC-00007945
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen: I am completely in agreement with a swift and
immediate settlement of this case. Marcia Lichti
MTC-00007946
From: dan heines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:45am
Dear DOJ--I understand that you are interested in comment from
the public re Microsoft. I say, enough is enough. Let them go back
providing great products. You and the various States get off their
back. I hope you have more important and productive things to do.
Yours truly,
Dan K. Heines
MTC-00007947
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:47am
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
Absolutely this settlement should be made!!! It should never
have even been brought in the first place. This country is great
because of innovative people like Bill Gates. I can't believe that
our justice system allowed it to go on this long. When we attack our
own is it any wonder that fools like Ben Laden and his followers
think they can?
MTC-00007948
From: Henry Harriss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:46am
Subject: microsoft settlement
All charges and suits against Microsoft should be immediately
dropped. Such a fragrant and evil interference with the free
economic system and against free enterprise is having terrible
consequences for Microsoft, the consumers, the industry, the
shareholders and this country. Let the market rule. Otherwise, our
country suffers except for a few greedy lawyers and state attorney
generals.
H. Harriss
MTC-00007949
From: Jonas Poblador
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a software developer and consumer, I strongly agree that the
currently settlement is fair. The CONTRACTS issue has been resolved
and I with that, it would be nice if the same rule will apply to
every other industry and sector.
The right to innovate and add new features in product is an all
American right. This bundling or packaging marketing scheme is
currently well and alive across all sectors of American business.
The bundling of CD/stereos & air-conditioning in the car industry
worked well for everybody. I also do not believe that the govt
should protect companies like SUN, ORACLE and AOL. These companies
are big enough to compete. They should come up with new ideas
inorder to survive. SUN, ORACLE and AOL has been the leader in thier
respective market for a number of years--they should be inovative to
stay ahead. They should also be more realistic in thier pricing to
keep thier leadership. The Govt should just let the market dectate
thier faith. We should avoid the protectionism mentally that is
adopted by our EUROPEAN freinds because they only
[[Page 24969]]
work in the short term. I feel that the current DOJ team is fair and
more up to date on current issues that the previous team.
regards,
Jonas Poblador
MTC-00007950
From: Jerry C. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/2/02
Dear Sir:
I have recently purchased a home computer with Microsoft Windows
XP Home Edition operating system preinstalled.
First, I found that as part of the user's agreement, I had to
agree to allow Microsoft to upgrade the operating system and install
supplemental software while I worked on the internet. By using this
approach to maintaining the operating system, I will not be able to
apply fixes and upgrades myself if I decide not to use the internet.
In addition, I do not want Microsoft determining how I use the
internet. Finally, no one has been able to explain what types of
supplemental software Microsoft plans to install.
Secondly, I found that other Microsoft programs that came pre-
installed on this computer also set up communication links with
other remote computers, which I can only assume are Microsoft
computers. I have no idea what types of information is being
transmitted while these links are open.
Thirdly, I found that I was not provided with an original copy
of the operating system on a CD for me to use to restore the system
if I have problems or to restore files if they become corrupted.
Instead I am required to provide space on my hard drive for a backup
copy of the operating system that they can use to restore my
operating system if I have any problems. This is a poor strategy to
system recovery, because I cannot do normal system maintenance
myself. And, if I have a hard drive failure, I have to buy a new
hard drive with an operating system already installed, where I
should have the option of replacing the hard drive myself and using
the CD to restore the operating system.
I believe that Microsoft is using unfair business practices by
depriving me of my right to maintain my own computer if I so desire,
and by transmitting information from my computer where I have no
idea what the information is. I also believe that Microsoft is
infringing on my right to use the internet and my computer as I
wish..
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerry Johnson
MTC-00007951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I do not understand all ligality about this subject. This case
is going on for more than 4 years. I am sure by this time our
justice dept. must have heard from both side all sorts of argument &
evidence, and collected lots of evidence of their own. Enough is
enough. It is time to stop appeals after appeals & make final
decision once & for all, but fare to all parties.
MTC-00007952
From: Gary Masterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madame:
I have been working in the computing industry since my
graduation from college in 1972, practically 30 years. From my
vantage point, Microsoft Corporation has been a primary player in
revolutionizing the way computing is done. They have been the
catalyst for producing less costly operating systems and software so
that today virtually any home owner can own and operate a computer.
This would have been financially impossible not too many years ago.
For the community of users who have come to rely on Microsoft,
the case that the justice department has brought against them is a
true misuse of justice. Microsoft has made things better for the
business community, better for the home owner, improved the quality
of programs available, provided software and support at reasonable
prices (unheard of low prices compared to where the industry was 20
years ago), and spawned many, many other businesses. It is an
outrage that the US Government would use our tax dollars to
prosecute a company that has done so much. I urge that this case be
settled in the most expeditious manner possible. Thank you.
Gary Masterson
Director of Marine Simulation
Buffalo Computer Graphics
3741 Lake Shore Road
Blasdell, NY 14219
Phone: 716-822-8668
Fax: 716-822-2730
email: [email protected]
MTC-00007953
From: Ventura, Albert Arthur (Al)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To Whom it may concern
Please be advised that I feel as do many of my co workers do
that the suit against Microsoft should be finished by forcing the
remaining 9 States that have not settled to come to some type of
agreement with Microsoft. The US taxpayer has had enough time wasted
on this suit and wants it over with. Also it is my opinion that the
US Judicial System should show more restraint of actions against
Microsoft in the future because its certainly starting to look like
their singling out one corporation even though that corporation has
done so much to provide increased productivity applications not only
for the United States Corporations but for Corporations around the
World.
Thank You
Albert Ventura
Lucent Technologies
Technical Support Services
3G-UMTS Data Provisioning
MTC-00007954
From: Kris Ruckman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to offer my thoughts on the microsoft settlement. I
work for one of the big 5 consulting firms where I help my clients
utilize many of microsoft's products as well as products of their
competitors (sun microsystems, oracle, etc.). My experience with
microsoft's product suite is that they develop world class software.
Their software is consistently well developed and integrated and
offers my clients a very good solution.
Their products have increased in functionality and usability
while consistently being competitively priced, a compelling
combination for any business. Microsoft has consistently beaten the
competition in delivering software that is useful, price competitive
and well integrated. Sun, Oracle and others have good products, but
their claim Microsoft that has some monopoly on the market or
somehow forces companies to use their products is completely wrong.
My clients choose Microsoft products because they routinely beat the
competition in functionality, integration and price. In the ultra-
competitive software industry, a monopoly simply does not exist.
While I do not agree with the majority of the rulings in the
settlement, namely that microsoft operated as a monopoly and stifled
competition, it is now time to settle this case. Microsoft needs to
get back to the business of developing world-class software that
meets the needs of companies. I encourage everyone to settle this
quickly and fairly so we can all get back to business.
Regards,
Kris Ruckman
MTC-00007955
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As an American citizen and registered voter, I beg you to accept
the settlement against Microsoft. For the benefit of our economy and
our future, let's move forward as a nation healing it's wounds.
Thank you.
Ana Crafton
701 Garlyn Ct
Saint Louis, MO 63123
MTC-00007956
From: J. Drew Dials
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As a technology professional, I've been following the Microsoft/
DOJ case from the beginning. It is my opinion that these remaining
unsettled states do not have the consumers best interest in mind at
all. These states are being influenced by the companies within them
that are unable to compete with Microsoft solely on a product
comparison basis. As a software developer, I have enjoyed the
benefits that Microsoft has built into their developement platforms
and technologies for a few years now. These technologies and
accompanying support, documentation, user communities, etc. are what
make Microsoft stand above the rest. These features are what enable
Microsoft to win business on many fronts. These features are what
draws the consumer to the
[[Page 24970]]
Microsoft platform. And these features are what these other
``unsettled'' companies refuse to compete with. Now, instead of
making a comparable product or even better product that the consumer
would readily embrace, they are attempting to use government to
fight their battles for them. If these companies were making these
high quality products to compete with the Microsoft platform, then
this case would not even exist and we would not have spent millions
of taxpayers dollars in an attempt to stunt Microsoft's growth. And
this is for the consumer? I think it would be a crime and a shame
for this government to play favorites to a few companies because
they can't compete in this highly competitive economy and I hope the
DOJ feels the same.
Thank you,
Jon Drew Dials
MTC-00007957
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is time for this to be over! The tax payers have
spent enough chasing a vendetta type lawsuit with the chance to put
some money in your pockets. Admit it States Attorneys!
Bill Gates simply has a superior product and is much smarter
than you!
M.P.Panter
MTC-00007958
From: Tim Schuele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The US Government has wasted enough time and money pursuing
Microsoft. I wholey support the settlement. This matter should be
put to rest as soon as possible.
Thank you
Tim Schuele
MTC-00007959
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion Microsoft is being punished for its innovations
and vision for the future. I am not a computer genius. I only
perform simple tasks on the computer by using Windows and Microsoft
Word and Excell. That is it. Vey simplistic tasks.
So, Justice Department give these people compliments. Their
competitors have not been able to develop software as easy to use as
Microsoft.
Regards,
Maria Kuechmann
MTC-00007960
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: Tunney Act
I believe that the settlement reached between Microsoft and the
government to be a fair settlement for all concerned. Please settle
this action quickly to allow Microsoft to continue doing its job
with its greatest creativity for its users and profit to its
shareholders.
Thank you for your consideration, Lois Ogburn, Microsoft
shareholder
MTC-00007961
From: neh--teh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The microsoft case shold be settled with no further litigation.
The settlement is more than fair to all parties involved. Continued
litigation will only benefit an extremely few wealthy corporations.
Let this great American economy get on with innovation which can
only benefit the economies of the world.
MTC-00007962
From: Robert Krance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding the Dept of Justice settlement and the appeal put
forth by a number of states to further punish and limit the company,
I wish to say that these efforts to control Microsoft will nothing
to help the individual end user.
I have been using computers to perform my occupation and
personal responsibilities for the past 20 years. I am not literate
in computer technology but consider myself reasonably competent in
using software for word-processing, spreadsheet, and database
applications. I remember beginning with DOS and working with
WordPerfect, Lotus, Quattro, etc. Attempting to integrate operating
systems and software, no matter whose, was always a frustrating and
non-productive process. I never want to return to that situation
again.
Frankly, I still spend too much of my time trying to make
hardware, software and operating systems compliant with each other.
Innovation is a dirty concept when it means frustration, wasted
time, and in the end a soup of diverse components that don't work
together on my machine much less work with other users. This is what
we face if the states persist in their attempt to punish and
ultimately limit Microsoft. I would mush prefer seeing Microsoft
being held accountable for compatibility issues with their operating
system and the multiple software and hardware applications that
require it.
It seems to me that in real dollars the cost of computing has
come down exponentially in the twenty years I have been doing this.
We must owe something to Microsoft, Intel, IBM and a number of
others. Left to its own elitist approach (disguised as an advocate
for the common man, remember the Ridley Scott commercial during the
Super Bowl), Macintosh would cost thousands of dollars more today.
In my first attempts at computing, I bought DOS and an IBM-based
system, simply because it cost half as much as Macintosh. Back then
DOS and the Intel-IBM configuration were not equal to Macintosh, but
the cost of the latter was prohibitive for many of us.
Oracle and Sun are doing just fine, thank you. They've never
approached the individual end user to provide a product. If allowed
to foul up the current computing environment, these companies will
price millions of us out of computing, just as Macintosh did. The
Internet would remain a perk for academics and industry. Please
don't kill the goose. Make MIcrosoft even more responsive to end
users.
Robert Krance
13 Clear Springs Court
Sugar Land, TX
77479
[email protected]
MTC-00007963
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We support the settlement as set forth by the government and
other states. Further litigation will not have a positive effect on
the general public; it will merely fatten the purses of the
attorneys involved.
The fact is that the majority of folks who purchase new
computers (including ourselves) prefer the Microsoft operating
system. If Microsoft 98 had not been preloaded on our computer, we
would have purchased and installed it.
Let the settlement stand.
Connie & Roger Larson
PO Box 648
Auburn, WA 98071
MTC-00007964
From: James E Bauer, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the suggested settlement is fair to all parties, and I
also believe that our country has suffered and will continue to
suffer until the settlement is effected. Let us not punish success
in the marketplace.
Microsoft has led the way in making America the technology
capital of the world. Let's get on with the future!
MTC-00007965
From: John Folino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:06am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I HAVE USED MICROSOFT PRODUCTS FOR YEARS AND AM VERY HAPPY WITH
THEM. I PAID A PRICE THAT WAS SATISFACTORY TO ME AND HAVE SAVED
THOUSAND OF MAN HOURS FOR MY BUSINESS.
I AM A HAPPY CAMPER.
SINCERELY,
JOHN F. FOLINO
CEO AMERICAN TRANSMISSIONS, INC.
MTC-00007966
From: johnny sterneker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to close the case against Microsoft. In my opinion,
the whole power and majesty of the U.S. Government was brought to
bear against an American Corporation in very questionable
cicumstances!
Get it overwith, NOW!
[[Page 24971]]
MTC-00007968
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Enough with these continuing litigation talks! I cannot see how
this helps the American consumer at all. Microsoft has been
chastened, and I assume there are now ``firewalls'' in place to
prevent abuse in the future. We tout a free enterprise system in
this country, so long as certain 'special interests' are not
offended, and so long as one innovator does not become too
successful. Tell me, how does the innovator stop him/herself from
innovating? That is what built and continues to build our country.
I believe that Microsoft like them or not, has been more a
benefit to the consumer than a hinderance. In our system, if there
were a better, more efficient product available, people would flock
to it. So, now that Microsoft has been exposed (as the greatest
innovator) and slowed down, where are all these other great products
from the competitors, which are going to better all of our lives?
Continuing litigation smacks of a few more hangers on (states)
attempting to draw freely from an entity they had nothing to do with
creating, and most certainly have benefited from on an ongoing basis
(taxes on many Microsoft sales for example).
The settlement is tough and fair! Let's all get on with our
lives. I for one hope that Microsoft continues to find the incentive
to innovate.
Ron Mondillo
MTC-00007969
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:07am
Subject: RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I wish to state my views on the Microwave settlement and they
will be short but they fairly represent my position on this matter.
I am a small business owner that works from my home as a home
builder in North Carolina with 30 years of building experience. I
graduated with a degree in Chemistry from Elon College (now Elon
University) and started my building career before the computer
revolution began. Slide rules, ledger paper, and hand written checks
were the order of the day.
I recognized that the computer revolution was going to leave me
behind if I did not get on board. So I computerized my business in
1983 and immediately found that I could multiply my efforts with
technology in lieu of manpower. As a self taught computer person I
cannot continue compete in the building business without the
benefits of quality and compressively designed software and
compatible hardware. The Microsoft windows software and similar
programs are essential to the success of my business and to so many
more of the baby boomers trying to compete with the more computer
literate recent graduates of today.
I worry that this litigation would reduce the gains of Microsoft
technology to another VHS/BETA war that some win and some will loose
out and who is looking out for the loosers. Please allow this great
innovative company to settle the litigation and let the rest of us
continue to operate our businesses with the best available choices
that we can find. If Microsoft's product did not work they would not
be selling them the way that they are. This country cannot continue
bust up good companies for the sake of a chance on new upstarts that
may or may not workout.
The past histories of the breakup of AT&T and the cell service
divisions within cities is all of the proof that our Justice
Department should stay out of Corporate America. The Justice
Department must have better things to do that screw up hard work of
so many small business people.
Thanks for reading my views and lets get on with the business of
being cooperative Americans, we all have much to celebrate and with
which to be proud.
Sincerely,
Chester W. Burgess
Burgess Construction Co.
MTC-00007970
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is past time for this settlement, which is fair to all, to be
accepted and finalized !!!! Let's now put it to bed. George
Chironis, of Melville, NY, 11747
MTC-00007971
From: Melvin C. Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I believe the settlement between the US Dept of Justice and
Microsoft is fair and should be finalized. I feel the United States
is fortunate to have Microsoft as a company. I trust Microsoft 100%
more than any of the media or politicians.
Mel
Melvin C. & Lillian H. Phillips [757-566-4578]
7277 Osprey Drive, Lanexa, VA 23089-9410
E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
MTC-00007972
From: Anthony Kozojed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
My husband and I have used microsoft along with Netscape
Navigator and AOL since 1994. We are both over 60 and have time to
use the computer at home. We can see no possible reason to sue
Microsoft when we purchased our computer, we added Microsoft Windows
95 by our choice and since we live in far Northern Minnesota there
was no internet service available except through Netscape Navigator
from Radio Shack, since then a local phone company and cable company
have started internet service. We use the ``E'' symbol from
Microsoft to connect to the ebay site, the light house from Netscape
for our family history site, and man from AOL to talk to family and
friend and email. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Sharon @ Anthony Kozojed
MTC-00007973
From: Ted Staplin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe that the settlement agreed to by Microsoft, the
government and participating states should be enacted.
I am most concerned about spending tax payers dollars pursuing
legal action that is not in the taxpayers best interest.
I have worked in the computer business my entire career (37
years),
I have never worked for Microsoft and in fact have worked for
their competitors.
It is my belief that they have made a significant contribution
to the USA economy and in particular to advancing Computer
technology. The consumer has directly benefited from this in being
able to buy computer technology that has advanced significantly
during my career, at a fraction of the cost.
Sincerely
Ted Staplin
104 Garrison Road
Chelmsford, MA 01824
MTC-00007974
From: J Houston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:11am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Get off Microsoft's back. Without its so called monopoly we
still be figuring change at the cashier line.
Jesse Houston
MTC-00007975
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Microsoft settlement case should be settled without further
litigation. I see little need to prolong this case. The current
provisions are fair for all parties. The interests of the American
people are better served with less litigation and more innovation.
MTC-00007976
From: Curt Mackie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a resident of the State of Iowa. I am very disappointed
that our Attorney General continues on what I believe to be a
``witch hunt'' with regards to Microsoft and its business practices.
I have owned personal computers since 1983. I have had many
opportunities in the past and currently to purchase other software,
both operating systems and application programs. I have elected to
run Microsoft Windows and Office as my major production package
after trying several others that I have purchased and currently
still own. (Red Hat Linux, IBM OS2, and BEOS are examples of the
operation systems currently available to anyone who wants them. Also
there are too many
[[Page 24972]]
application programs available to list them all, however I will
mention Lotus 123. I can remember when it was the only spreadsheet
available and it cost several hundreds of dollars. And, it was copy
protected to boot. So heaven help you if you lost or damaged your
disk! I am very happy that Microsoft makes available the products
that they do. I am free to chose to purchase them or not. When
something better comes down the road I will make that decision also.
I think we should put this mess behind us. Let Microsoft do
business. Let its competitors come up with better products and we
will purchase them. I am a home user. Thank you for listening.
Curt Mackie
[email protected]
515-981-0720 cell 515-779-1300
MTC-00007977
From: Win Bartsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to inform you that I am in favor of the proposed
settlement with Microsoft Corporation. Since I never agreed with any
part of the governments case, I am in favor of ending the issue as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Win Bartsch
1850 Beans Bight Rd. NE
Bainbridge Island, WA
98110
MTC-00007978
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:17am
Subject: SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT
DEAR SIR,
I WILL MAKE THE COMMENT BRIEF AND TO THE POINT. I FEEL, IT WOULD
BE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY TO CLOSE THE ISSUE WITH
MICROSOFT AND MOVE FORWARD. I SEEMS THAT ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSED & NOW IT IS TIME TO FOCUS ON THE FUTURE. KEEP THE
INNOVATIVE MICROSOFT AS IT WAS PRIOR TO THE LAWSUITS & DO NOT BREAK
UP THE COMPANY! THIS ENTIRE PROCESS HAS BEEN A NEGITIVE FOR OUR
ECONOMY! PLEASE SETTLE THIS ISSUE NOW!
JOHN MAJOR
MTC-00007979
From: Lovelace Rucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to advise that as a consumer I am satisfied with the
Microsoft Settlement as it now stands. We are tired of always trying
to satisfy the jealous public interest people. We are for free
enterprise and capitalism. The size of the company makes no
difference as the cream always rises to the top. Our government
needs to get on with their own business and let ALL the cream risers
keep supplying consumers with their tremendous products and new
innovations. Micro- soft is a wonderful example of USA spirit in
capitalism and the freedom to be successful in the Land Of The Free.
MTC-00007980
From: DCarpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Congrats doj the settlement is OK for me
Love Dave
MTC-00007981
From: paul stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:21am
Subject: Good Morning,
Good Morning,
As a consumer using Windows, I have never been injured from its
use. I find the software to be very productive. The government is
wasting tax payer money pursing this matter. The original issue is
mute by the march of technology.
Sincerely,
Paul K. Stout
Training Coordinator
ASTD Member
[email protected]
MTC-00007982
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ:
I have continued to believe that the case against Microsoft has
been carried too far. It is important not to stifle innovation. I
have been retired for 11 years and my former company still benefits
from the 17 years of protection that has been provided for the
patents under my name.
One of the issues in the Microsoft case revolves around the
browser. I have always had Netscape as my browser and in the 4.5 and
6.2 versions they are just as all consuming as Micosoft in their
service.
It seems to me that no one has gained in this litigation,
especially because it has been dragged out so long. Let's put this
thing to rest once and for all. It was my understanding that a
settlement had been worked out but some States have continued to
keep the case going. I have already expressed disappointment that my
home state of Florida is one of the procrastinators. I have also
been been disturbed at the way the DOJ has handled the case. The
fairest and most sensible thing for all concerned is to end it once
and for all. Charles W. Lehnert, retiree and consultant.
MTC-00007983
From: Tyler, Joanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:26am
I believe that the Microsoft settlement is in the public
interest. I believe that Microsoft has not engaged in monopolistic
practices; that the company should have never been sued; and now a
settlement should occur--closing this case forever.
Joanna Tyler, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Research Director
Northrop Grumman Information Technology Health Solutions and
Services
1700 Reseach Blvd., Suite 400
Rockville, MD 20850
301-294-5643
301-294-5401
[email protected]
MTC-00007984
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read and followed the case on and off through the months.
I have not read the entire proposed settlement but I will give you
my two thoughts on the matter for starters.
- I believe that it is a good thing for our lives, to keep
microsoft together, one company, doing the many things that they do
best. And that dividing the company in any degree, would be a
solution that just pleases certain people, but does not solve
anything and probably makes it worse.
- However, I agree with Apple computer spokespeople 100%, that
microsoft should not be allowed to pay fees to the court, by
flooding the education market ``schools, libraries, etc.'', with
``free'' computers, in essence, doing something they have not been
able to do through sales, which is to infringe on that market.
Allowing them to do so, would tie schools into using their software,
their upgrades, for decades, and would further empower them as a
monopoly, taking away from the market power of competitive hardware
and software companies, like Apple, and Sun.
MTC-00007985
From: Gary H. Minar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's be serious about what is happening. MS Corp. has created
more beneficial products that have made the world become better
'connected, enhanced how we commuicate, improved business
productivity, improved Gov't efficiency, among others. Why is MS
being punished for such never-before seen creativity? It is UNJUST.
MS should be applauded at every opportunity. They have done more for
human kind thru computer technology than anyone else I know.
05) 688-7957, FAX: 693-8618, Solvang, CA
MTC-00007986
From: Ann Keefe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this suit with Microsoft so the country can move
ahead. I believe the uncertainty about the outcome has played a
tremendous roll in the stock markets inability to sustain a major
rally. The country needs some good news right now, especially with
our service men & women overseas and others here still cleaning up
ground zero.
Thank you,
Ann Keefe, Concerned Citizen
MTC-00007987
From: Stewart.Menking@relian cenational.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 24973]]
Microsoft created an industry that revolutionzed how we work and
play. The cost of their products goes down as their products
improve. And when they gave something away for free, a few big
companies started to scream. I have yet to understand how this has
hurt me or any other consumer.
This case should be put into the history books as soon as
possible.
MTC-00007988
From: Davis, Suzanne
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to put this issue to rest and proceed with the agreed
upon settlement. As a business user and a personal user I have
always believed that all end users would not be where we are today
without the efforts and uniqueness of Microsoft development. I'm not
a lawyer so it is possible that Microsoft did go over the legal line
with regards to marketing and sales efforts, but competition
certainly did not have these same tools to offer. I don't believe
that this suit was fair in the first place and it was a ``marketing
tool'' used by competitors to save their businesses and ``award''
them for not being able to fairly compete with Microsoft. Do not
waste my tax money on any more proceedings that do not result in
this settlement being completed. The lawyers have had a chance to
earn their fees. Our economy and international business communities
need to get back on track.
Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Davis
Information Manager
MTC-00007989
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen
It is my view that the Microsoft Settlement is fair and
reasonable and should be concluded without further litigation or
delay
John G. Robinson
49 Bay Shore Drive
Plymouth, MA 02360
MTC-00007990
From: linnco .
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my strong opinion that this case be
settled once and for all. Please do not allow business competitors
to derail the settlement for their own gain. SETTLE THIS CASE! The
economy needs this to be finalized.
MTC-00007991
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:32am
Subject: microsoft setlement
The settlement the government has reached with Microsoft is more
than fair for the Government. I happen to believe that this suit
should not have been brought in the first place. Settle it and get
it over.
Jerry Simmons
MTC-00007992
From: Mike Gnadt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern/DOJ:
I am the owner of a small business that has been using Microsoft
products for over a decade. During this period, I have found the
pricing, after-sales support and user friendliness to be superior to
other products that we have tried.
In addition, the availability of an extensive variety of
different products and business tools that are designed to run on
the Windows operating system has enabled me to be more productive at
a cost that is affordable. Consequently, I have been able to reduce
the cost of doing business and pass some of savings on to my
employees in the form of higher salaries.
I have had a significant share of my own personal retirement
funds invested in stocks like Microsoft and other related companies
that rely on the business generated by Microsoft. Since the DOJ
initiated the litigation with Microsoft, I have watched my
retirement funds retreat to lower valuations. It is my sincere
belief that this litigation, while being extremely expensive and
unproductive, it is not in the best interests of the American
consumer. Additionally, the cost to the economy in general is too
much to sacrifice for a litigation with such little merit.
Basically, I do not believe that the Government has demonstrated
that Microsoft has damaged the consumer; and, therefore, Microsoft
should not be forced to divert any more financial and intellectual
resources to its defense.
Very sincerely,
Myron A. Gnadt
MTC-00007993
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:33am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
I'm very much in favor of the Microsoft Settlement, and believe
it's in the best interest of the Country to get this settled now.
The economy will suffer if this settlement is not honored.
[email protected].
MTC-00007994
From: El Sawy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:34am
Subject: Common Sense
Can good common sense please prevail? Our portfolios have been
devastated ever since the Department of Justice started taking
creative US technology to court.
Soraya El Sawy
MTC-00007995
From: David G Marek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not one accustomed to writing letters to the DOJ. However,
I believe it is time that we put the entire Microsoft fiasco behind
us. I look at what Microsoft has given us in terms of Operating
System, Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Presentation Software,
Database, etc. and am amazed of the seamless interfaces between
these products. I am tired of special interest groups trying to
manupulate government for their own interests. It is time to move
on. As a government, with terrorism, recession, etc. facing us, we
have much better places to spend our time and money. The only thing
this continued case is doing is putting a lot of lawyers to work.
david g marek
MTC-00007996
From: Betty Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Further litigation is unnecessary, you should settle now ! It is
in the best economic interest of all concerned, especially the
consumers. SETTLE!!!!!!
Betty Z. Thompson
MTC-00007997
From: Blondin, John Q (SEATTLE SE/TE/ZQ 335)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 10:38am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear DOJ:
This suit has drained this country for far too long both
financially and mentally. It is time to wrap up and move on.
Microsoft has created the standard for computer usage in the world.
It has become much like the English language, the common language of
business and air traffic and tourism. It enables the world to
function much better than it would with many computer languages. It
has created a platform from which many others can build and sell
products further enabling us all to communicate and do business. The
US Govt is wasting its time and taxpayer dollars trying to hamstring
a national treasure at the request of its competitors. I thought
this country was about competition.
The US Govt should spend even a fraction of this effort on doing
something about airport screening. Since 9/11 almost nothing has
been done. Nationalize the job and get QUALIFIED US CITIZENS to work
there. Stop just talking.
John Q. Blondin; Seattle, WA., 98136
MTC-00007998
From: Jumana Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the settlement with Microsoft. Do not let
Microsoft's competitors dictate what will only benefit them in this
settlement. The consumers and the economy need this settlement.
Sincerely,
Jumana S. Scoggins
MTC-00007999
From: Joe Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
[[Page 24974]]
I am writing to voice my support for the settlement with
Microsoft. I think this lawsuit has been a travesty of justice from
the beginning. The lawsuit does not stem from consumer harm but from
the mindless ambition of the Clinton administration and the
corruptness of Janet Reno. The state attorney generals have proven
to be nothing but greedy opportunists who have no regard for the
well being of their citizens, many of whom are Microsoft or other
technology stock investors. The supposed ``harm'' that Microsoft has
caused has only been noted by one group, the competitors of
Microsoft. The lawsuit against Microsoft, on the other hand, has
created real harm to our entire country. The stock market has been
decimated, wrecking retirement accounts, college savings accounts
and all other investment vehicles. The snowball effect of the stock
market decline has brought our entire economy to its knees, and is
the true reason our country is in a recession today. It is time to
put this entire affair behind us by settling this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Joe W. Taylor, II
160 Willow Bend Court
Bowling Green, KY 42104
MTC-00008000
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tell the government to go after bin Ladin, Kadafi and all the
other government terrorist that are right here in the U.S. with the
same zeal that they are going after Microsoft and maybe we wouldn't
be in the predicament that we???re in now.
MTC-00008001
From: e baxter lemmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:44am
Subject: microsoft settlement
APPRVE THE SETTLEMENT! END THE LITIGATION!
E. BAXTER LEMMOND
2711 BROOKWOOD ROAD
RICHMOND; VIRGINIA, 23235
MTC-00008002
From: bdkittley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:47am
Subject: Observations about case & Microsoft business practices
I think that the original motives of DOJ in bringing the lawsuit
were misplaced. Fear it was punishment, because Microsoft no longer
wanted to ``cooperate'' with other US agencies demands for access to
systems. Microsoft writes good software, but some of the things that
the systems ``enable'' are regularly abused by third party software.
This is why the OS is always locking up.
Financially punitive remedys will solve nothing. This said, ``It
would be a mistake to allow Microsoft to continue to extend the
standards to insure incompatibility with all other OS's''. This
practice cost the government and consumers far too much, and
contributes little new value. Please, bias this settlement to focus
open standards and on building a better mouse trap, not another
marketing scam.
Settle this thing, and get on with business.
Dave Kittley
P.O. Box 203
Rule, TX 79547
[email protected]
MTC-00008003
From: Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:44am
Subject: Stop attacking one of the engines of our Growth...
Sheesh will you people find something more constructive to do..?
Like maybe find the people responsible for killing so many of us...?
That might be a bit more useful than going around extorting money
from AMERICAN corps. Im embarrassed that I have to say that to
adults who are supposedly smart.
STOP ALL ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT NOW. Allow the market place to
work...its impossible for anyone except the government to break the
way the marketplace works.
Pierre Legrand
4137 Broussard Street
Baton Rouge, La. 70808
225-924-6661
MTC-00008004
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement is tough, fair and just. The
vast majority of the people in the nation believe the antitrust case
should be settled now and we should move on!
Special interests should NOT be allowed to drag this thing out.
Technology is our strong suit from a business and innovation
viewpoint. It drives our economy. It should not be hampered by undue
preoccupation with fighting a case that has already been fairly
decided.
MTC-00008005
From: Lauren Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I strongly support settling the Microsoft case. Too much time
and effort has been wasted on this already. It is time to let a
company that has brought good products to the American public get on
with business. By the way, I have no relationship with Microsoft
other than a small investment in their stock.
Lauren Friedman
MTC-00008006
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The nine states that have refused the federal goxernment's
settlement with Microsoft are trying to make Microsoft share holders
pay for theirfoolish spending.
MTC-00008007
From: Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ----- Original Message -----
From: ``Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:48
AM
Subject: Stop attacking one of the engines of our Growth...
Sheesh will you people find something more constructive to do..?
Like maybe find the people responsible for killing so many of us...?
That might be a bit more useful than going around extorting money
from AMERICAN corps. Im embarrassed that I have to say that to
adults who are supposedly smart.
STOP ALL ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT NOW. Allow the market place to
work...its impossible for anyone except the government to break the
way the marketplace works.
Pierre Legrand
4137 Broussard Street
Baton Rouge, La. 70808 225-924-6661
MTC-00008008
From: McCauley, John Joseph Jr. (091)AMSTA-AR-WEA(093)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
Settle the Damn Case, for the life of me I still can't figure
out how it got to Court in the first place. Stop wasting money and
time on this situation. It is a shame that with Real Estate Rip
Off's, Insurance Rip Off's, Health Care Rip Off's and yes the
Attorney Fee rip Off's the Government has the time and the money to
waste to continue with this.
John McCauley
4123 Conashaugh Lakes
Milford, Pa.18337
MTC-00008009
From: Robert MacCallum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please bring this settlement to a close. It is my personal
opinion that the stock market drop had its beginnings in the
Microsoft case brought by the DOJ. Whether it really did, or not, it
seems that dragging out this settlement can do nothing to help the
economy get going again.
Your truly, Robert W. MacCallum
Travelers Rest, SC.
MTC-00008010
From: Mike and Judy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:50am
Subject: This is to submit my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust
settlement:
This is to submit my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust
settlement:
1. It is encouraging that the justice department was able to
save the tax payers money by allowing Netscape to write/dictate the
complaint. They didn't charge us for that, did they?
[[Page 24975]]
2. I was much encouraged that the word monopoly was used so
frequently in the complaint. I am sure that by using the word so
frequently it must be true.
3. Now that you have used millions of our tax-payer dollars to
prosecute this case, I am sure the reasonable prices previously
experienced by the American software users will be greatly enhanced.
This, I am sure will offset the great expense.
Conclusion: If you haven't determined from my remarks, I feel
this entire proceeding is a miscarriage of justice. However, since
justice is not the business of the American court system, I hope at
least the lawyers who profited had a good time.
I believe it is in the best interest of the American people to
complete this case now, with the settlement that is on the table.
Mike Frye
MTC-00008011
From: Diane Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:53am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I HAVE NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY AT WHAT POINT FREE
ENTERPRISE BECOMES MONOPOLY BUT I THINK THIS SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT
HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGHT. THERE WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO
IS NOT HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS BUT IT IS TIME FOR BUSINESS TO
CONTINUE AS USUAL. MICROSOFT HAS DONE SO MUCH FOR THE SEATTLE AREA
AND WASHINGTON AND THE COUNTRY. PLEASE END THIS SITUATION AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU
DIANE CRAWFORD
MTC-00008012
From: Keith D. Olinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly urge the Court and the remaining nine states to
accept the settlement reached between Microsoft, the DOJ and nine
states. It is long past time to put this very politically motivated
piece of our history behind us, and let the economy begin to heal.
It is truly a sad time in our history when good American companies
are put through this type of punishment for being innovative and
relentless in their pursuit of helping the world advance. End this
pathetic madness now! As a person that deploys massive numbers of
computer desktops, laptops and servers, I can tell you that the
benefits of having a common desktop, massive resources for
development and deployment, and literally thousands and thousands of
applications that work on that platform are a tremendous time and
money saver for me.
Take a trip though history to find out why Windows has the
largest market share. It is because they provided a great, open
operating environment at a reasonable price that runs on commodity
hardware, and ironically, opened up the operating system to
developers through vehicles like MSDN and developer API's and tools.
That is precisely why OS/2 faltered, and the Mac never lived up to
its potential. Mac has still not opened up the developers! If Scott
McNealy, Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs would spend half of the time
they spend bashing Microsoft in developing and marketing their own
product line, they would be have much better companies. Have you
ever heard these guys?! It is amazing!
Again, I STRONGLEY urge you to end this now by accepting the
proposed settlement. This suit does not, in any way, reflect on
capitalism and a free market society. Actually, it reflects quite
the opposite.
Thanks
Keith Olinger
MTC-00008013
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I wish to voice my opinion that the Microsoft settlement should
be concluded with no further litigation.
Bill Clinton spent more time and money investigating and
prosecuting Bill Gates than he did Osama Bin Laden!!!!!!!!!! Look
where he got us. Consider all the millions of PC users who have
benefited from Microsoft's products.
Sincerely,
Linda Hood Sigmon
5805 Woebegone Trail
Maiden, N. C. 28650-9038
704-483-5159
MTC-00008014
From: Dennis Santoro
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po. state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02 10:55am
Subject: Comments regarding the 2 proposed settlements in the
Microsoft cases
To the Department of Justice and the States Attorneys General,
I am writing in submission of comment regarding your proposed
settlements in the 2 cases regarding Microsoft corp. I beleive I am
entitled to submit comments as per the Tunney act of 1974 and wish
you to consider the below as public comment on the cases.
With regard to the proposed settlement in the antitrust case,
unless the remedy actually adresses a consumer's ability to buy any
computer from any manufacturer with a choice of any OS (Linux, Unix,
Windows) preconfigured on the machine and MS is prohibibited from
using its market position to make that difficult or to impose
penalties on manufactures who wish to do so, MS's position and
behavior will not be changed. No remedy that fails to address this
issue will be successful. Further, similar measures should be
enacted to address bundling of productivity software (office suites)
to allow competition form Corel, Star Office, IBM (Lotus) and
others. The fact that purchasers have only the MS office suite as a
choice in most cases (as per terms usually included in the Windows
OEM license) means that most other suite vendors are precluded from
much business de facto.
The bundling issue should also be addressed but, in my opinion,
with the exception of the browser and e-mail client choices, most of
the rest is a non issue. But MS should not be allowed to further
bundle IE and Outlook unless other choices are also provided and the
APIs are sufficeintly published and documented so that other
competitors can easily offer seamless integration.
All remedies should be monitored and enforced by a group
actually capable of doing so. MS has proved by past behavior that
they are untrustworthy in terms of following the letter or spirit of
agreements they enter into. Penalties should be clear, easy to
exercise and easy to trigger. The proposed settlement does none of
that. Nor will simply requiring MS to provide a stripped down
version of Windows. Furhter, MS's attempt to become the arbitor of
identity on the internet (Passport) should be precluded so that MS
cna not extend their monopoly to the internet itself using the
strength of their current monopoly. As for the consumer suit, while
the fund amount and it's distribution to schools is quite
appropriate, these funds should be given without restriction. MS
should have no input into the spending of these funds. Schools
should be able to use these funds for infrastructure (wiring, PCs)
software from ANY vendor, OSs from Apple, Linux vendors, Sun, or MS,
etc. These funds should be placed in the hands of a group that can
not, and will not, be connected to nor influenced by MS. MS should
not have any representatives on the board responsible for the funds.
It should be made up of credible education professionals and
computer professionals unaffiliated with vendors and manufacturers.
The charge to the board should be to help schools meet the needs the
schools believe they have in the best way possible for the school in
question. It should NOT be for the purpose of promoting MS products
in the schools.
Thank you for your attention and feel free to contact me if you
have any questions.
Denn Santoro
President
Resource Development Associates
http://www.RDAWorldWide.Com
Offices in the United States and Germany
Providing solutions to health care, business, governments and
non-profits since 1982
MTC-00008015
From: Henry Cimetta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is good for everyone, but most important to the
US economy and financial markets.
MTC-00008016
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Government,
Please spend your time and my money hunting terrorists rather
than Microsoft.
Thank you,
Gary
MTC-00008017
From: Kevin Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 24976]]
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to you, in accordance with the Tunney Act, to let
you know my comments and feelings regarding the Microsoft
Settlement.
I strongly feel that this case has gone too far, has lost the
interest of the nation, has caused quite enough economic and
legislative disturbance, and feel it is time for it to come to an
end.
As a consumer, I feel Microsoft did nothing wrong. In fact, I
shudder to think what position we might all be in today had
Microsoft not risen to the challenges in this ``information age''.
They are visionary and we are all fortunate that they have hired the
best and brightest minds to help keep America at the helm of this
burgeoning, new world. In fact, I believe they helped create this
new world. Punishing them for it is senseless, useless and harmful.
The suit again Microsoft has caused harm to our economy beyond
calculation. A company as large as Microsoft can change the whole
climate of the economy when it falters. And it has faltered over the
past two years not due to quality of product or due to quality of
service or due to inability to continue to innovate. It has faltered
due to this useless lawsuit.
It is time for it to be over. After the events of September
11th, this country has greater things to worry about than this
lawsuit. Also, the economy is suffering and needs the shot in the
arm that an unencumbered Microsoft could provide.
Let's finish this thing. Let's get on with the business of being
Americans and with the business of innovation, creation and design.
The world suffers while we ponder and clog the courts with this
useless matter.
As a consumer, as a stockholder, as an American, I want this
thing to end.
Thank you very much for your time and for hearing my thoughts.
Kevin D. Edwards
302 West Sixth Street
Benton, IL 62812
MTC-00008018
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are a small consulting company in the Fairfax, VA area
managed by a group of very enterpreneur US citizens--Comter Systems
Inc. We also do have issues with the bigger players in the field but
I have to say salutations to them for getting there. I feel the same
for Microsoft. They started out like everyone else and had worked
their way to the top and I cannot believe a bunch of jealous
competitors can create this level of aggravation and insult to them.
Hope you settle with Microsoft ASAP and thus they can move
forward and take us to the next generation of Technology and keep
US, the leader in Technology like they did last time.
Thank you
MTC-00008019
From: dale janus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:01am
Subject: microsoft settlement
January 2, 2002
Dear Justice Department:
I would like to add my comments to the proposed settlement of
the microsoft antitrust case.
I feel the DOJ has not done enough to end microsoft's monopoly
position. The remedys in the settlement will not change the way
microsoft does business. The DOJ has already been down this road
with microsoft before and the remedys imposed in the past have done
nothing to change their business practices.
I feel the settlement should be thrown out or at least re-
negotiated so that microsoft changes their business habits.
The penalty that has been imposed and is going to be paid to
school districts is so overtly designed to gain sympathy for
microsoft that I question the skill of your negotiating team. Every
person with school age children in the country are going to clamor
for their share of the penalty pot. Microsoft has used their vast
fortune to create allies among the general public by paying their
fine to schools instead of the DOJ.
The current settlement is not enough. The microsoft monopoly
will continue.
Dale Janus
[email protected]
MTC-00008020
From: robert e tolleson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a citizen in Nashville, Tennessee, who is tired of this
continuous dragging out of the Microsoft case. From the beginning I
have felt that proving the consumer has been harmed by Microsoft
over the past 10 years was hard to comprehend. Today a consumer can
own a computer for less than $1000 with an operating system of
software under $100 that ten years ago cost thousands of dollars and
only corporations could afford them. Also by Microsoft pioneering
this home computer industry many other companies have emerged and
grown tremendously on the surge of this new industry. If competitors
have been harmed, I am not sure they would have been in business if
not for the early innovations of Microsoft. That brings us to today
and a few states funded by special interest groups who will benefit
at Microsofts demise are continuing to pressure the politicians in
thier states to refuse to accept a seettlement hashed out by the
Federal Government and other states. We are at war as a country, and
I feel that to prolong this case is embarrassing and rediculous in
the scope of priorities for our country now.
Please use whatever means legally to discourage these states who
do not represent the average consumer by continuing this case. IT IS
TIME TO STOP.
MTC-00008021
From: Tina Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:04am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to let you know my feelings on this proposed
settlement. I believe it is a tough but fair settlement and should
be approved. It is not in the best interests of consumers or our
economy to prolong this litigation further. To do so would stifle
further innovation.
Sincerely,
Dan R. Johnson
MTC-00008022
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po. state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02 11:05am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
This e-mail is sent in accordance with the Tunney Act of 1974.
It is my personal opinion as a 17-year veteran of the IT industry
that the proposed Justice Department settlement is completely
useless, and it will not hinder Microsoft's attempts at monopoly in
any way. Microsoft's monopolistic actions since the settlement
proposal have only intensified; witness the early relase of Windows
XP to try to avoid an injunction, and the continual push toward
usage of Microsoft Passport, which has potentially serious
consequences to not only software companies, but to all e-commerce.
For the long-term health of the IT industry in specific and the
American economy in general, I strongly urge that the DoJ settlement
be completely rejected and that much harsher measures be put into
place. I would like to further suggest that the original judgement
(the breakup of Microsoft into seperate companies) be upheld.
Thank you.
Roger L. Bonine
Information Technology Manager
Miller & Martin LLP
Chattanooga, TN
(423) 785-8393
MTC-00008023
From: ROBERT STROHL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AS A concerned citizen I uge the DOJ to end the political
persecution of Microsoft and do all things necessary to make the
propossed settlement become reality.
A George BUSH Supporter
Robert D Strohl
MTC-00008024
From: The SHADOW know
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
The public perception is that more money was spent by the
previous administration fighting Microsoft than was spent fighting
terrorism. True or not, perception is everything, so it is time that
the Microsoft settlement be approved. We need to put this behind us
so that we can concentrate on America's real enemy--international
terrorism.
Thanks,
Dr. Ray A. Gaskins
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney, Va
[email protected]
Ray Gaskins
[[Page 24977]]
``The world's a little poorer for a soldier died today. We'll
hear his tales no longer for he has passed away. He was just a
simple soldier who was sworn to defend his home, his kin, his
country, and would fight until the end.'' Anonymous
MTC-00008025
From: Harry LeBlanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a professional software developer with 13 years experience,
and have used both Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating systems,
middleware, development tools, and applications. I am deeply
disturbed by the proposed settlement, both for what is included and
what is left out. I exhort Judge Kollar-Kotelly to remedy these
flaws.
What is included:
1. A five-year limit. Given that Microsoft is riding the wave of
ill-gotten profits accrued over a decade of illegal monopolistic
practices, five years isn't enough to restore a marketplace of
normal competition, even if the settlement didn't provide mechanisms
(noted below) for Microsoft to hamper the function of the
implementors of the proposed settlement. It seems to me that the
enforcement period should be at least twice the duration of
Microsoft's criminal past, and perhaps certain structural elements
of a sound settlement should be enforced in perpetuity.
2. Microsoft's voice in the technical committee. Since when does
a criminal choose its guards? Given the pervasive influence of
Microsoft in the market, and their persistent monopolistic behavior,
it is dubious at best that their chosen representative, and the
representative who can be vetoed by that person, will fully have the
interests of the public at heart. Watchdogs chosen by Microsoft, on
the Microsoft payroll, and working fulltime in secrecy on the
Microsoft campus, do not meet any reasonable criteria for
impartiality.
3. Moreover, crafting in a feature that allows Microsoft to
dispute costs gives Microsoft a handy built-in mechanism for
sandbagging. I quote: ``Microsoft may, on application to the Court,
object to the reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. On
any such application: (a) the burden shall be on Microsoft to
demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) shall be
entitled to recover all costs incurred on such application
(including reasonable attorneys? fees and costs), regardless of the
Court's disposition of such application, unless the Court shall
expressly find that the TC's opposition to the application was
without substantial justification.''
Given the vast wealth Microsoft has illegally obtained from the
public through its monopolism, setting enforcement expenses as
``reasonable'', and giving Microsoft a mechanism for subpoenaing
their watchdogs (thus distracting them from their true duty) is
asking for trouble. Microsoft's bearing of the ``expenses'' of such
activity will be trivial, and more than compensated by the implicit
protection of any future monopolistic behavior concealed from the
technical committee--not to mention that it lets Microsoft run out
the clock at a very cheap cost. The technical committee should have
a free hand, and an unlimited budget underwritten by Microsoft.
4. Microsoft has implicit control over who is permitted to be
their competitor. Again, I quote: ``(c) meets reasonable, objective
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity
and viability of its business...'' Why does Microsoft get to apply
the litmus test of the ``authenticity and viability'' of who is
permitted to see their API's?
Another quote: ``Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a
Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer
Network (``MSDN'') or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate
with a Windows Operating System Product. ``
Doesn't Microsoft have control over who participates in their
proprietary MSDN program, and don't they set criteria of
participation (eg, nondisclosure, etc)? This is one of the very
mechanisms by which Microsoft has implemented their monopolistic
strategy. Such APIs should be *freely distrubuted* to the *public*,
not sold to the few acceptable competitors that Microsoft
designates, on terms of their own setting. Allowing Microsoft to use
their MSDN mechanism and decide which business is authentic and
viable is too weak. It specifically gives Microsoft a mechanism to
exclude open source developers, academics, etc.
What is left out:
5. Recompense. Microsoft has illegally profited for years from
their monopolistic practices. That money rightfully belongs to the
public, and should be returned to the public. It should be fairly
straightforward to measure the average profitability of their
nearest competitors vs. Microsoft's illegally enhanced profit
margins, thus determining how much Microsoft illegally profited.
Perhaps this money could be funneled into educational grants for
computer hardware and (completely non-Microsoft) software for
elementary, secondary, and college tuition. These funds should
easily cover the expense of putting (for example) a Linux computer
on the desktop of every student in public schools, state
universities, etc.
6. Punitive damages. Over and above returning the ill-gotten
gains to the public, Microsoft should be penalized for their illegal
activities.
7. Document formats. Microsoft enforces its monopoly by keeping
their file formats proprietary. Since Microsoft chooses which
competing operating systems to support with their applications,
companies who have been monopolistically pressured into buying
Microsoft applications (eg, MS Office) are trapped on the Microsoft
platform by their inability to migrate their (proprietary and
copyrighted) corporate data to other operating systems. This is key.
Microsoft applications compel users to stick with Microsoft
operating systems, this perpetuating their monopoly. The only remedy
would be to open up their file formats (or possibly to require them
to provide fully and publicly documented import/export features that
allowed users to migrate *all their data* (including ``objects''
such as forms, reports, etc.) to competing products, and to likewise
recreate data from compliant import files (even if created by
competing products). In other words, the public deserves a way to
get all their data out of Microsoft products, and Microsoft should
pay for providing such a mechanism.
I've heard the rationale that punishing Microsoft would be bad
for the economy. First of all, that's no excuse for failing in the
duty to enforce justice. Secondly, the leverage Microsoft has in the
economy was acquired through their crimes, and the judgment should
not perpetuate the consequences of their crimes for fear of rocking
the boat. Third, monopolists have always been bad for the economy,
the contrary arguments of monopolists notwithstanding. And finally,
the amount of money from recompense and punitive damages, pumped
back into the economy in such a way as to stimulate competition in
the computer software field, should provide an enormous economic
boost.
American citizens are counting on Judge Kollar-Kotelly to
faithfully perform her solemn duty to uphold justice by preventing
this weak and flawed proposed settlement from being implemented, and
properly addressing the true interests of the United States of
America by returning the ill-gotten wealth from Microsoft to the
public from whom they stole it, further penalizing Microsoft
financially, and crafting structural remedies to prevent Microsoft
from ever being able to commit the same crimes again.
All America is counting on you, Judge. Do your duty.
Sincerely,
Harold C. LeBlanc
1300 Powderhorn Terrace
Apt. 11
Minneapolis, MN 55407-1669
(612-729-9670)
[email protected]
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin
Franklin
MTC-00008026
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I think the goverment has spent enough money and time to
litigate the Microsofr Settlement and should close this case.
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft
MTC-00008027
From: Robert Cahall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsot settlement
The court should accept the settlement and put this matter
behind us for the best interests of all of us
Bob Cahall
[email protected]
[[Page 24978]]
MTC-00008028
From: Retha Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do believe this is a settlement that does benefit the
consumer. Microsoft has always built a better mouse trap and the
market place has reflected it. It is time to get this behind us and
get the economy moving again and Microsoft is a key player in that
process. We do not need a few to benefit we need many to benefit if
we are going to move forward and this settlement certainly helps.
Sincerely
Retha Bennett
MTC-00008029
From: Vance L. Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I disagree with the Final Judgment against Microsoft, it is much
too harsh.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
- Vance L. Ray
MTC-00008030
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:13am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Please accept the settlement as it presently stands. There has
been to much intervention by others in the developments made by
Microsoft. Where would America be today, if it were not for
Microsoft and its wiliness to bare the cost of development?
Inventions should be encouraged, not discouraged by law suits, etc.
Joseph W. Hart
Naples FL
MTC-00008031
From: Bill Colburn and Susan Marcolina, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am completely in favor of the Microsoft settlement that has
been reached between the DOJ, several states and Microsoft, and I
urge the Judge in this case to accept those terms, reject the
outrageous claims of the states who have refused to settle and close
the case in it's entirety.
Please stop your horrendous waste of our tax dollars in
harassing and prosecuting one of the most admired companies in
America, one that will be a key to getting our economy out of the
dumps, and get back to the serious business of pursuing terrorists,
murderers, gangsters and others of their ilk. Get back to the real
work of serving the people of the United States instead of
continuing to waste the taxpayers' money on private vendettas driven
by failed competitors of Microsoft and a few Attorneys General who
think a tough position on high profile case will help them get
national name recognition and either re-election when their terms
expire or a nice spot on a national party ticket in the next
presidential election.
Thank you.
William Colburn
420 Datewood Court NW
Issaquah, WA 98027
MTC-00008032
From: Sheldon Katz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:14am
Subject: microsoft settlement
it seems outrageous to me that the government has spent so much
time and money prosecuting microsoft when there are other problems
that are so much more deserving of the money and effort.
you spent years chasing ibm amd accomplished nothing but making
lawyers rich.
you broke apart at&t so that we all pay more money for less
phone service and cannot identify which vendor is at fault when
things 'do not work'. while microsoft is not perfect, they do
producr a consistant predicable product that fully integrated those
option in the pc operating system that i care to use.
i do not look forward to the govenment getting me somethig
better that i will end up paying more for and spneding hours
installing it.
it ain't broke--why do you have to fix it.
let sun and oracle fight their own battles.
the american consumer has been well served by microsoft- better
than the doj serves us in this case
spend your time on terrorists and organized crime--do something
useful
sheldon katz
MTC-00008033
From: Cecily Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:11am
Subject: MS Monopoly comment
I was appalled at the settlement for the regular suit, and for
the settlement for those states that held out for more. The remedy
is little more that a slap of Ann Lander's proverbial wet noodle.
And, as Apple has rightly pointed out, the schools provision puts
the fox solidly within the hen house. Microsoft engages in
monopolistic practices. So we hand them a great opportunity to take
over one of the few markets of its alternative in operating systems?
I don't need a doctorate in electrical engineering or jurisprudence
to see this lacks any common sense, nor does the punishment fit the
crime.
Microsoft's disdain for any government remedy for its
monopolistic tendencies was revealed at about the same time as the
regular settlement was anounced. They knocked all users except those
using Microsoft browsers and email programs off their MSN.com
internet provider service - which is generally paid for by users. A
free subscription to the MSN ISP is often given for a limited time
with new Windows machines, but after that free period, people have
to pay to get the use.
Of course there was a great uproar and they were forced to back
down, but the very fact that they'd pull such a egregious stunt at
the very time they were to learn of their court penalties shows that
they MUST be closely monitored.
Their new operating system doesn't show much of an improvement
in the monopolistic tendencies although it's made some grudging
hooks so different web browsers can be used. And it has grudgingly
allowed PC makers the option to sell machines on which the Windows
operating system is not installed.
And they say they will offer open systems? And they say they
will follow/allow existing standards? That must be why the cell
phone standards are being set by all except Microsoft which is
offering its own? Unhunh, and I have a bridge to sell you.
Cecily Wood,
Technology Planning and Support
(Although my views are part and parcel of my job, they may not
represent the school system's.)
MTC-00008034
From: M. G. Fred Kick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel it is long overdue for the settlement, prolonging this
action to please special interests especially AOL (the most consumer
unfriendliest ISP and the most expensive)will only hurt the
consuming public and cost the taxpayer an other fortune. Let
Microsoft get on with it's service to the consumers worldwide, it
will help our exports, provide jobs, and help our ailin economy.
M.G. Fred Kick
MTC-00008035
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:18am
Subject: Settlement
Please settle this matter as quickly as possible.
Harold Potler
MTC-00008036
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:19am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO WHOM IT CONCERNS,
I AM NOT A PERSON THAT TYPICALLY WRITES THESE
LETTERS........JUST TOO BUSY.
HOWEVER, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT IS TIME TO CLOSE THIS CASE
AGAINST MICROSOFT.
THE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC HAS GREATLY BENEFITED FROM THE
STANDARDIZATION BROUGHT BY THEIR STRONG MARKET POSITIONS. WE SHOULD
STOP PUNISHING THEM.
ALSO, OUR ECONOMY NEEDS US TO LET THIS GO AND FOCUS IN OTHER
AREAS.
Judy L. Price
Judy L. Price, CPA, Inc.
[email protected]
REDDING OFFICE:
1616 West Street
Redding, CA 96001
530-246-4114
530-246-4115 fax
COTTONWOOD OFFICE:
3861 Country Estates Drive
Cottonwood, CA 96022
530-347-1726
530-347-4558 fax
[[Page 24979]]
MTC-00008037
From: Jack Burleigh
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I've read about the Microsoft settlement on the Department
website. The settlement seems entirely fair and reasonable to me and
I urge the Department to finalize the settlement. In my humble
opinion, it is time for this litigation to end.
Sincerely,
Jack Burleigh
MTC-00008038
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement should stand in its current form. Those who
desire to reject it and force the breakup of Microsoft do not
understand economics. If Microsoft truly does not serve the public
market because of security flaws in its products or other factors,
then innovation on the part of competitors will bring about desired
changes. It may take a little longer than a government lawsuit, but
ultimately the free market will be served and government
intervention will not be needed. Microsoft became as large as it is
because its products were innovative and made computers easier to
use by the general public. They may have gone in a direction that
discouraged competition, but I personally have not found many
products that can compete -- and I have looked. Linux may be the
catalyst that causes the corporate shakeup the Clinton
Administration looked for in the original lawsuit. We do not need
the expense or use of DOJ resources for additional action against
Microsoft.
Abbott Barclay
Richmond, Virginia
MTC-00008039
From: Rudolf Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that the settlement accepted by the DOJ is fair and
reasonable and should be the end of the litigation. We have spent
far too much already on this vendetta of a few competitors and it is
time to end it.
Stop this fruitless litigation and let Microsoft and the US get
on with life. The very people (the public)that the litigation was
supposed to have been protecting have NOT been complaining so who is
this really about?
Rudolf Forster
[email protected]
MTC-00008040
From: Betty H meng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sun and Oracle need to compete fairly with Microsoft in the
market place not in the courts--anti-trust doesn't apply when there
is no way to put a price tag on createtivity and entrepreneurship--
Let the customers be the jusdge and the jury--We know how to
make our decision--
These 9 states should not be granted a license to sue--Let them
all create competively and we be the judge and jury and decide--
Mrs Betty B Meng (78 years old and experienced )
MTC-00008041
From: Dewire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is hard for me to understand my government's instance on
trying to punish an American company that has become a world wide
standard for excellence. How does it help consumers to prevent a
company from giving away features with their product? True, it hurts
their competition because their competition did not think of it
first.
I as one American Tax Payer, am tired of the government wasting
my money going after a tax paying American Company.
Foreign government encourage and support their industries...only
in America do we try to tear down what our citizens create and
develop...under the banner of being too big and powerful. Other
countries laugh at our Justice Department for doing their work for
them in trying to eliminate our own American powerhouses.
In Japan Bill Gates would be declared a Living National
Treasure...In Great Briton he would be knighted....here you are
doing everything you can to destroy him!
Come to your common senses and enjoy and hail what Microsoft has
accomplished.
Robert and Carol Dewire
3640 Bal Harbor Blvd. # 511
Punta Gorda, Florida
33950
MTC-00008042
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:22am
Subject: microsoft settlement
can you imagin the mess the computer industry would be in if
microsoft had not set a standard that every could follow. boot the
politicians out out of the process.
MTC-00008043
From: Dixie DeRoshia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support Microsoft's right to innovate and feel the Federal
Government has overstepped it's duty to protect and it has in fact,
harrassed a private concern unnecessarily.
Dixie Coster-DeRoshia
MTC-00008044
From: William Wertz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008045
From: Bob Blake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:25am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I concur in the agreement in the Microsoft Case
Robert Blake Jr
13 Ethel Avenue
Peabody, MA 01960-530813
MTC-00008046
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There needs to be a prompt resolution of the cases involving
Microsoft. I am a substantial user of various interrelated Microsoft
products which I use to conduct my daily business. Those products
currently meet my needs very well. I cannot afford to have their
interdependency shatttered!
MTC-00008047
From: JANE WALKER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:27am
Subject: Case settlement
This case needs to be settled as soon as possible. With the
state of the economy, another company does not need to be damaged by
the interference of the government and people who are not dependent
on this company for their living. We should not punish people for
being brilliant and having innovative ideas.
Martha Jane Walker
3663 Briar Creek
Beaumont, TX 77706
MTC-00008048
From: richard tighe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please- Let us settle the Microsoft case, and not continue to
litigate!
MTC-00008049
From: Fred Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
In my opinion the Tunney Act covering the Microsoft Settlement
is fair, equitable and in the public's interest. I think that this
law should stand, all the litigators should go chase other fire
engines and our country should get back to building our economy
instead of tearing it down. We should not attack corporations based
on the fact that they have been successful. If a company can't
compete it can't make it up by litigation. We should let the best
continue to innovate and, unshackled, push the frontiers of
technology for the betterment of all people.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Fred C. Benson
MTC-00008050
From: Leroy E Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to complete the settlement as proposed. It is fair
and balanced and removes futher uncertainty over an entire industry.
This should be beneficial to the stock market and to business
generally. Leroy E. Gardner
MTC-00008051
From: Rick Deno
[[Page 24980]]
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please put this litigation behind us and let the economy finally
take a step forward. Microsoft's customers made Microsoft a
monopoly, NOT Microsoft. If we chose some other alternative, I want
to be the one doing the choosing, not the Government.
MTC-00008052
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
For nearly four years, my voice has been instrumental in the
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft???s
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy.
However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and my voice is more
important than ever.
The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the ???public
interest.??? Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting
to use this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Don???t let these special interests defeat the public interest.
The Department of Justice will then take all public comments and
viewpoints and include them in the public record for the District
Court to consider.
Please send your comments directly to the Department of Justice
via email or fax no later than January 28th. Whatever your view of
the settlement, it is critical that the government hears directly
from consumers. Please take action today to ensure your voice is
heard.
I AM IN FAVOR OF TAKING THE SETTLEMENT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED
AND LETTING THIS MATTER BE SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL. ANY FURTHER
LITIGATION WILL DO NOTHING BUT MAKE A LOT OF LITIGATORS WEALTHY AND
THAT IS NOT NEEDED AT THIS TIME IN OUR LIVES.
THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO MY COMMENTS.
HOWARD F. RENFORTH
144 CROSSTIDE CIRCLE
PONTE VEDRA BEACH FL 32082
MTC-00008053
From: Clark, Nick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is good to see that some of the states are finally getting on
with settling their dispute with Microsoft. Although I've never felt
indebted to Microsoft for the career I'm currently in I do however
feel that it was their foresight and technology that pushed a
technology market so far that eight years ago I finally found what I
wanted to do for the rest of my life. I love working with their
product! If it weren't for all the dumbass hackers making it harder
on consumers Microsoft would probably be an even bigger company.
It's a shame for the states that are still in dispute over the
current settlement agreement but you can never please everyone all
of the time. I know alot of the issues that are still being mulled
over are purely political and it's sad that nobody will remember the
idiots still attacking Microsoft come the next election. Microsoft
got to where they are because of their innovative ways. Yes,
business deals have been made and they do need to play nice with
their desktop and server operating systems. As for the market that
either competes or works with Microsoft, they too need to develop
better technology. If they didn't get behind in the first place we
probably wouldn't even be going through this right now. Thank you
for your time.
Nick Clark
IT Manager/Consultant
http://www.kebcpa.com/html/information--technology.html>
Kerber, Eck & Braeckel LLP http://www.kebcpa.com/>
Springfield, IL 62701
MTC-00008054
From: Katy Ainsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:37am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To Whom it May Concern:
Please note that I am a voting citizen of the United States of
America. I am writing this letter in response to the settlement
agreement with Microsoft. I feel this settlement to be in the best
interest of consumers, the country, and especially the economy. With
the downturn of the economy of the United States since the 9-11 I
feel it to be of utmost importance to get this mess behind us and
keep the economy stable. America is a capitalist country and we
should do all we can to keep it this way.
Thank you.
Katy Robertson
MTC-00008055
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This suit by the federal government against Microsoft has not
been in the public interest. Microsoft has plenty of competition and
prices on all things electronic continue to drop. Please settle this
case so Microsoft and the country can get on with it.
F. Lynn Leverett
7604 SW 178 Terrace
Miami, Florida 33157
MTC-00008056
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:39am
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
You must force Microsoft to place a warning sticker on any
software that requires the user to first install the Microsoft
Internet Explorer browser before the said software can be installed.
I use the Netscape browser and they wanted me to install MS IE
before I could make greeting cards! I declined and asked for a
refund.
William Kenney
Jamaica, NY
MTC-00008057
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement. I believe it works in
my favor as a customer.
Joann levine--
MTC-00008058
From: Mary Selvick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:40am
Subject: settlement
I hope you can forward this to the senators; I have had it with
the government sticking its nose into ``honest'' companies! Leave
Microsoft alone! The settlement was fair!
What I would like to see is a committee come together to
investigate the ``Pork'' that all the senators push through and the
tax payers have to foot the bill!
I am for term limits and get those damn bloodsuckers out!
MTC-00008059
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Gates did not force me to buy his products. I evaluated his
products and am glad I do not have to hire a consultant to make
various software programs work seemlessly together. My productivity
has increased because I do not have to waste time figuring out
various software programs. Clearly, Gates and Balmer have been
agressive and at times arrogant (Balmer).
Give them a fine, tell them not to do it again but let them get
on with business and offering new products. Microsoft may not be the
most innovative but they certainly make things work better. Do you
use Word and PowerPoint? I am considering switching from Quicken to
Microsoft becasue Quicken constantly crashes and according to
reviews has been surpassed by Microsoft Money. Netscaape and AOL's
internet browser are inferior to Microsoft Explorer.
Give Microsoft credit for turning on a dime and realizing that
the internet would change our lives. Do not be dictated by
competitors who think a lawsuit is the only way of ``beating''
Microsoft.
Stop wasting more time and money and let's move on. America
should concentrate on being an economic superpower that will further
globalization to help wipe out individuals or groups like the
Taliban and bin Laden.
[[Page 24981]]
MTC-00008060
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: Dept. Of Justice
FROM: Mary Ann Sullivan 65 Park Ave.
Williston Park, NY 11596
I am pleased with the DOJ ruling on Microsoft. I do not believe
that it would be in the best interest of the American economy to
break up Microsoft. If other states want to go ahead and and sue
Microsoft, I wish them luck! They won't succeed. We need a company
like Microsoft to keep the American economy strong and progressive.
There are idiots today who hate Microsoft and don't even know
how to use a computer!
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008061
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The attack on Microsoft because they built a better mousetrap is
unwarranted and outrageous.
I have been a computer user and analyst since my entry into the
workforce some thirty years ago. In 1966, I was first introduced to
programming (FORTRAN) as an engineering student. I can tell you I
had no interest following this experience in being a computer geek!
I left school and served in the USAF, with Viet Nam service. I
returned to school on the GI Bill and obtained my BA and MBA. In
this process, I was exposed to GPSS, Wang calculators and other
cutting edge (at that time) computer models. They still left me with
wanting someone else to do my modeling.
Graduating with my MBA, I then became a systems and financial
analyst for a Bank holding company designing major banking systems
(we were the first to install ACH in Florida and mini-computers in
the bank branches) and using timeshare models. As computers moved
away from the ``big box'' towards the ultimate ``personal
computers'' I became more of a hands on user.
I became a CPA working for a major firm and then as the #3
financial spot with a fortune 500 which became a LBO and then
liquidated. After the liquidation, I went into the work force as a
consultant/CPA with my only staff being a PC under DOS. Without my
computer background, it would have been extremely difficult for me
to grasp what was going on in the PC--DOS environment-with seperate,
unintegrated Lotus, WordPerfect, database and other applications. It
was only several years later that I finally migrated to Windows
which I initially resisted because I did not want to retrain myself.
When I found what Windows and the integrated applications could
do--I never looked back. AND THE TOTALLY INTEGRATED PACKAGES I
PURCHASED WERE FAR CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT AND BETTER than the more
expensive packages that I had perviously been working with. Because
of the systems created by Bill Gates--I have less office staff, am
more efficient at what I do, am willing to do my own modeling and
correspondence, email, internet access, etc. etc. etc.
I am at a loss as to what you think Bill Gates and Microsoft
have done to harm me--the consumer! As I understand it, the major
issue against microsoft revolves around their internet access system
(MSN) which I do not use. I am an AOL user. And while I have found
some conflicts which are an irritant--I do not consider them
actionable. I still use AOL (my kids would not let me move) and have
figured out how to defeat whatever conflict (perceived or real)
existed. Note: AOL Instant messenger is another example of an
innovative creation which for the life of me I do not understand why
someone who creates and builds a better mousetrap (and is the only
one who has and everyone wants it) needs to be punished for doing
so! If you want someone to attack--why don't you look at some of the
tax software firms--Why do I have to pay so much for software from
them? Their fees are excessive in my opinion. SETTLE THIS ACTION
AGAINST MICROSOFT AND MOVE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MTC-00008062
From: Ralph Askam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am in favor of settleing the microsoft case as has been
proposed in the final sttlement agreement.
I think enough time and money has been wasted on this matter and
that every one would be better off withit's settlement.
Thank you
Ralph F. Askam M.D.
4120 Nobhill Dr.
Muskegon.Mi. 49441 231 780 2252
MTC-00008063
From: Robert Hess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I'm writing to you in regards to the proposed settlement of the
anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
I have several points of view on this matter.
As a (minor) shareholder, I feel too much time and money has
already been spent by the company and the taxpayers on this matter.
The company has agreed to abide by the proposed settlement to which
the federal government and nine states have also agreed.
As a long-time personal computer user, I have never been forced
to utilize Microsoft products. Over the years, I use, and have used,
different operating systems, internet browsers, word processing
software, spreadsheet programs, etc. In some cases, the Microsoft
product was the best choice for me, in other cases, it was not...but
I have a choice.
As an American taxpayer, I'm tired of the taxes I pay being
wasted on a handful of lawyers making their careers on long, drawn
out bureaucracies such as this.
It is time for this matter to be settled.
Respectfully,
Robert Hess
Wyomissing, PA
MTC-00008064
From: Ted Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I think that Microsoft should be able to conduct business as it
sees fit. Microsoft has announced its plans all along to the
competition who thought that their grip was enough to see it
through. When reality struck they called foul. When they had
Microsoft on the ropes and tied up in Federal court they forged
alliances themselves trying to become the ruler of the computer/on-
line worlds. To what avail? Allow Microsoft to continue to move
ahead in its product development and desktop integration. Don't
punish them for their innovation but rather allow the market place
to dictate the direction of the marketplace and may the best
companies win!
Ted Michael
248-877-5772
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008065
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to make my voice heard regarding the Microsoft suit. The
suit against Microsoft was a huge mistake from the beginning. Since
when is our government in the business of suing successful
businesses, because the competition says it is unfair.
I believe that the settlement which has been reached is fair to
all parties. The government has never made a case showing where
consumers were harmed by Microsoft. In fact, the exact opposite is
true. Microsoft has made it possible for more and more consumers to
benefit from use of computers and the internet.
Please end this costly suit at once and move forward with the
settlement already agreed upon.. If Microsoft had an unfair
advantage, shouldn't the competitors have been benefitting from the
tough times of Microsoft this past few years (due to this
litigation)? The opposite has occurred. We have all seen our stocks
in all of the internet companies go down the tube. Look at the
numbers. This decline began almost in direct correlation with the
Lawsuit. Now consumers truly have been harmed, but not by Microsoft,
but by our own Government which will not leave the free market free.
Please do the right thing now.. Thank you for your time...Joyce
Krawiec
MTC-00008066
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone-The settlement is reasonable to all
parties-Stop wasting money on more litigation pushed by wealthy
special interest groups.!!!!
Julie Baron
MTC-00008067
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US Department of Justice,
[[Page 24982]]
As we all know, our economy is suffering and we are now in a
recession. If the case against Microsoft is resolved soon, I think
our American public will gain the confidence it needs to begin
investing in our great economy again.
Because Microsoft has brought so much to this world in software
technology, they should be applauded and not obnoxiously criticized
for their efforts. Sure, they should operate accordingly and be
punished accordingly, but enough is enough. Let's get on with it and
start this economy rolling again.
AMM
MTC-00008068
From: Edgar Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It appears to me the states are only interested in getting
revenue out of this law suit similar to the tobacco lawsuit. I don't
believe the public interest has anything to do with it. Microsoft
should be free to continue to innovate as they've done in the past
which has made vast changes in our lives as well as helped the
economy to grow.
Ed Lambert
MTC-00008069
From: Margaret Murdock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I think you should accept the Microsoft settlement that has been
reached by the DOJ and the various 9 states who wanted something
different than the original DOJ agreement. Microsoft has paid enough
for being a successful company. As far as I am concerned the whole
thing has been a miscarriage of justice.
You learned all your computer use/knowledge at tax payer expense
and with an Information Specialist standing by to get your computer
straightened out from any screwups you did. We tax payers have not
had that luxury.
When I bought my first computer, for my son to use at college,
it cost more than I was able to save in one year, and then when I
got it home, I had to figure out how to put DOS 3.3 (for which I had
to pay extra) on it. Then I had to pay another $150 for a word
processor, which I had to install on it, in the hopes that it would
all work together. AND, I did not have the luxury of any one to help
me if it didn't all work OK. And if I broke it--to bad.
Microsoft has made the purchase of a computer to use a pleasure,
not the nightmare it use to be. All the software that you need to do
the things that you want your new computer to do--is on it, and runs
correctly!! More than any other company, Microsoft has made
computers able to be used by anyone in the world. It is no longer
only for the computer savvy few. Even you would not be able to use
your computer if it were not for Microsoft making it easy enough
that you can simply point and click your way around different
windows.
Don't let the special interest groups stop the settlement.
Margaret Murdock
MTC-00008070
From: Joe Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe that the lawsuits brought against Microsoft are for
the most part politically (self interest) motivated. Obviously
Microsoft has been very successful and, as a result, has become very
big. However, it is still important that the software industry be
allowed to have a definite leader in a free market. I think that
other companies should be guaranteed the right to compete with
Microsoft, but they should not be guaranteed success! In general, I
believe that the current proposed settlement with Microsoft by the
DOJ is more than fair to the parties which have filed charges
against Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Joe E. Johnson
MTC-00008071
From: Jim Applebaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Sir or Ms.,
I believe the settlement of the DOJ suit against Microsoft
should be approved as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jim A.
MTC-00008072
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:58am
Subject: Micro Soft Settlement
My wife Billie and I both believe that the whole Microsoft trial
has been unamerican and a total travisty. We grow up being taught
that as Americans the sky is the limit. We are told that hard work,
original thinking and attaining goals are the keys to success.
Apparently not so if we take the example of the Microsoft affair as
an indication of how it works. There isn't a single company in the
U.S. that has done more for the American Image than Microsoft, and
it is a world-wide perception. They should be rewarde, not
punished!!!!!
Billie & Don McKee
MTC-00008073
From: Lyle McDermed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that Microsoft is being punished for being
successful. There seem to be several Microsoft wannabees that have
an inferior product that want to see Microsoft pay through the nose
for good business practices that the wannabees do not have! Since
capitolisim allows for and encourges success, I fail to see why the
federal Justice Department and the different States are trying to
destroy Microsoft. Success should breed additional success and not
PUNISHMENT!
Lyle K. McDermed
MTC-00008074
From: Ken (038) Audrey Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We feel the settlement is fair and should apply to all the
states involved.
We are not sure why the states should get anything, Microsoft
has given all states computers and training.
Sincerely,
Audrey Smith
MTC-00008075
From: DICKBEAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:02pm
Subject: End The Legal Obstructions
Senator Hatch and Microsoft's Utah competitors should get a
life. The court has ruled and we should all be moving on.
Richard C Bean
MTC-00008076
From: GERALD HARTZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I think this foolishness has gone far enough, too far in fact.
If you can't see that these lingering nine states are in ``it''
strictly for the money than I have a bridge I want to sell you after
this foolishness is concluded. We cannot control the success of one
company, i.e. Microsoft, and the failures of others by taking money
from the successful one and giving it to the slackers in an attempt
to even the playing field. This is absolutely stupid, and My
Government must act more intelligently than that. This entire
``suit'' thing (designed by the previous Clinton Administration who
when faced with what to do and had no intelligent way to turn, sued)
makes me sick. Wake up Justice Department!!!!!!!
This email comes to you from US Citizen:
Gerald Hartz
19 Diller Line Road
Chesterville, ME 04938
MTC-00008077
From: Frank (038) Debbie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please finalize the settlement. Stop further frivolous
litigation and let the computer industry get back to business.
Thank you,
Frank Hobin
409 S. Beech St.
Winnsboro, Tx 75494
(903) 342-9222
MTC-00008078
From: Thelma Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:04pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
Re. the Microsoft Settlement:
With regards to the new Microsoft settlement, we would like to
add our thoughts to what so much of the American public thinks. We
agree with the settlement and find it a tough but beneficial
settlement for all concerned. We believe that the interests of all
the parties are well served by this proposal and we urge you to
finalize this
[[Page 24983]]
settlement as soon as possible. As a consumer, we think the terms
are fair to us as well as to the aggrieved parties. Please do not
delay this proposal, Let's get this behind us, and keep the American
economy moving!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thelma and Nelson Stevens
Barrington, IL.
MTC-00008079
From: Luiz De Lima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The litigation against Microsoft has already damaged the economy
perhaps more than terrorist acts. I think it is time to settle the
case and move forward to resume growth.
MTC-00008080
From: Allan Kalar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:08pm
Subject: MS Settlement
Yes, Microsoft has some problems, but delaying the settlement is
not the way to solve them.
Microsoft's biggest problem is that their operating systems
aren't reliable. No amount of legislation or court action is going
to fix that. The marketplace will. Linux is currently replacing
Windows as the system of choice for web sites because it's more
robust and cheaper per node. Hardly the scene you'd associate with a
monopoly situation. Don't let the special interests whine their way
into the procedings. Settle this thing now so the world can get on
to something important.
Allan Kalar
Viking Waters (not connected with Microsoft)
800-838-5958
[email protected]
PO Box 1975
Elma, WA 98541--
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
MTC-00008082
From: Arden Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get off of Microsoft's back.
Please end your never-ending, apparently obsessive, interest in
the Microsoft case. You've done enough. Send your people after
someone--or something--of consequence. Prosecuting a business,
simply because the business is successful, provides a large group
of--otherwise (possibly/probably) unemployable--attorneys with
ample, overpaid, employment and on-the-job training. But it serves
very little, if any, meaningful purpose. Microsoft does more good
for the United States of America, by sheer accident--in one week,
than your organization does, with hundreds of overpaid bureaucrats,
working around the clock, in 20 years.
Buy your staff some pool tables and foosball machines, and keep
them busy with those interests and activities. By giving them
anything else to do--you are taking the risk of doing much harm. I
am proud of what Microsoft has done for society--and for the entire
world. I am not at all proud of what you people do--either for a
living or as a potential benefit to society. In fact, what you do
for a living is kind of embarrassing. Try looking for some honest--
and meaningful and productive--work. There must be something that
you can do.
Arden Warner
11038 Quail Run
Dallas, TX 75238-3712
214-341-8174
MTC-00008083
From: Larry Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10pm
I work in the travel industry. We're struggling to stay in
business and it will be a tough year in the best of scenarios.
In the interest of our nation and economy, I ask that the case
against Microsoft be closed.
Thanks,
Larry Cox
MTC-00008084
From: Marty McCafferty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very disappointed with the settlement. It seems to just
bandage the problems with Microsoft's monopoly powers. Microsoft can
easily use the delays in court to damage competitors.
Microsoft's illegal advantages have striped the computer
industry of real innovation. A simple look at the computer related
technology growth in the 80's compared to the 90's to present
Microsoft era shows we are stagnate. Microsoft has choked off
innovation so only the monetary strong can attempt to compete. This
severely limits innovation.
For instance, In the 80's a $300 Commodore 64 could play music
and simple voice recognition and used the latest technology and most
people could afford it. An Amiga computer was about $600 could 32-
bit multi tasking operating system, play digital music, speech
synthesis, video capture and has hundred of affordable graphic and
sound programs and was capable of hi speed modem access. The PC
controlled by Microsoft has just recently been able to offer these
abilities mostly because of the cost to do business with Microsoft
and the ability of Microsoft to starve a small innovator out of the
market using there illegal monopolistic power.
The only way to really help the consumer is to break Microsoft's
up into competing Microsoft companies. The vacuum left behind would
be filled with lots of innovative competitors keeping prices down
and new ideas and technologies affordable. We would see the computer
growth of the 80's of a scale of todays PC market.
Microsoft's biggest market strength is they can ``include''
products in there OS that a person would not purchase but may keep
someone from purchasing a competitors product. Netscape is one big
example, Explorer was an inferior product and few would download it,
so Microsoft included it in the OS. Now a user could use the
inferior product because it was included and they may be less likely
to download the competitive product. Microsoft's recent Media Play 8
is following the same game plan. There are better products out there
but users are less likely to download them because they have a
``similar'' product included with the OS.
Why invest in competing with Microsoft with their ability to
force new computers to have there competing products ``integrated''?
The computer industry could really used more competition in the
OS and application fields to bring down the cost of good products.
Regards, Marty
Marty McCafferty
Network Administrator
Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd.
Phone: (847) 273-4327 Fax: (847) 273-4127
E-mail: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00008085
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: Without Microsoft products, I would be
unable to have my business and help my daughter with school.
Microsoft made products that work for the private person and are
affordable. The case against this innovative company is ridiculous
and is hurting our economy. I wish to express my disappointment in
the governments continual pursuit of Microsoft. Please put an end to
the legal action. Microsoft has been a model in creating technology
that is affordable to so many people.
Thanks for providing a means for me to express my opinion
Linda Roddis
St. Paul, MN
MTC-00008086
From: maryasara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This was never really a DOJ case. If there was a problem with
Microsoft's competition, they should have spent their own money and
brought a civil case. How about a DOJ case against the competion for
collusion.
MTC-00008087
From: James Morss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello,
It's time to settle and get on with business. We need companies
like Microsoft to stay healthy and competitive. Microsoft has given
the US a big competitive edge in the tech market and we need to help
them not punish them further. Let's move on.
Jim Morss
206 174th Pl. NE
Bellevue, WA 98008
MTC-00008088
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 24984]]
Date: 1/3/02 12:23pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLMENT
To the Department of Justice:
I am writing to let you know that I am in favor of the
settlement of the Microsoft dispute. I believe that it will be for
the good of our economy and our sense of fairness and freedom to
accept the settlement and get on with the growth of our
technological businesses.
Sincerely,
Anne G. Stout
MTC-00008089
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Continued interference by government in the free market is
unwanted and not what we are electing politicians to do. They are
only hurting economic recovery. Get off the back of business.
C.S. Griffith, Ponte Vedra, Florida
MTC-00008090
From: John, Christine, Cailyn and Jared Cattell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please complete the proposed settlement as soon as possible. I
strongly believe this is in the best interests of our country's
freedom to innovate and to help our economy pull out of recession. I
believe these lawsuits were motivated by Microsoft's competitors who
are trying to ``rob'' Microsoft of their rewards for producing
outstanding products that have propelled our technology growth over
the last decade.
Again, please do not stand in the way of an economic recovery
and freedom to innovate with new products. Complete the proposed
settlement now and let's move on.
Thank you,
John Cattell
MTC-00008091
From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My thougts on the subject case.
I am glad the subject case is coming to a close. I understand
litigation of this magnitude takes time, however, in this case you
took way to long in reaching a final decision.
By not coming to a quicker decision it affected the economic
well being of many developers waiting in the wings for a decision.
Small to mid-size organizations are still the backbone of our
economy and you under-cut their ability to act and/or react. Most
organizations do not have the cash that a Microsoft has, therefore,
quicker decisions are necessary. I agree Microsoft should not have
been broken up.
I am disappointed that you are allowing them a long-term free
hand in entering the education market. The long-term effects will
favor Microsoft and put competition at a disadvantage. Other
remedies would have been more realistic and would have encouraged
long-term competition.
Punishment was in order and you fell short.
Bill Williams
[email protected]
MTC-00008092
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:23pm
Subject: settlement of governmebt lawsuit
Come on!! Lets get this thing behind us and encourage the
lawyers to work on something that really is worthwhile.
Microsoft has been a boon to world economy. They shouldn't be
punished! Microsoft deserves to be #1.
Microsoft's competitors should spend their money $$$ on
improving their businesses, not on lawyers.
Al Boden
MTC-00008093
From: Vince Yelmini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the midst of these uncertain economic times, the last thing
the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a
few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
This settlement is in the public's interest: it is tough, but
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. It is good for
consumers, the industry and the American economy.
Please settle this and clear the court system!
Sincerely, V.A.Yelmini
MTC-00008094
From: Fred Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time to settle. The DOJ had a poor excuse to start with
and hammered the tech sector with the threat of breakup. Settle as
agreed.
MTC-00008095
From: Catherine Ansbro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:28pm
Subject: comments
I am concerned about the proposed ``penalties'' on Microsoft.
These so-called penalties do not really punish this company for its
monopolistic activity over many years. In fact, they make it
possible for Microsoft to continue its monopolistic activities in
the years to come. This is simply not acceptable.
Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet
Web Browser market. This is more apparent to a software developer
who works within Microsoft operating systems. The technical aspects
involved in the operating system itself, specifically, development
with the Microsoft Foundation Classes and use of '.Net' technology
marries the software developer (happily or unhappily so) to Internet
Explorer, and the operating system. The newer versions of Windows
have the Internet technologies wrapped in them. This is an obvious
attempt to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Browser market.
Whether or not they supposedly did it 'on purpose', the result is
the same: a monopoly.
Specific training programs such as MCSE (Microsoft Certified
Software Engineer) and MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution Developer)
are geared towards maintaining the internet browser market by
gearing Microsoft Certified individuals (who must pay for courses
and tests, and so become personally invested) to use only Microsoft
Products.
One could argue that nobody else has attempted these things on
the level that Microsoft Inc. has. Of course not, because they
didn't have the chance to because of Microsoft's illegal monopoly
and its unfair treatment of would-be competitors. This lack of
competition is still hurting us all, at the level of individual
users who do not experience freedom of choice in the products that
are made available to us, and at the level of businesses who could
have made different and better products and considerable profits
during these years that Microsoft was an illegal monopoly.
Hardware manufacturers is hiding the price of the operating
system on new computer systems. And they are not permitted to sell
the hardware separately from the software. This is fundamentally
wrong.
The legal resolution to this matter should include the following
demands on Microsoft:
(1) Microsoft products--or products of any software
manufacturer--must be sold as separate items by computer vendors.
Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice, and other software
manufacturers will have a chance to compete. Installation of
software selected by the user can remain free. For example, I prefer
to be able to buy a linux operating system installed on a new
computer. Why should I have to also pay for a Microsoft OS that I do
not want or need? And why is the price of the Microsoft OS &
Software not published?
(2) All Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
(3) The specifications of Microsoft's past, present and future
document and network formats must be made public, so that documents
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other
makers, on Microsoft's and other operating systems. This is in
addition to opening the Windows Application Program Interface
('Windows API', the set of ``hooks'' that allow other parties to
write applications for Windows operating systems), which is already
part of the proposed settlement.
(4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software Engineering
Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well as insight
into their development process for Operating Systems. SEI level 3 is
required by the United States Government for software companies that
supply software to it (or that was coming in 1999). This
certification was created to protect the government from software
manufacturers that had no software development process. This same
certification should protect the average consumer, AND insight into
the Software Development
[[Page 24985]]
Process for creation of their operating systems would give software
manufacturers a chance to keep up with Microsoft.
(5) Device Driver information for new operating systems MUST be
made public prior to the release of the operating system by a
minimum of 6 months. This is VERY important when dealing with future
web enabled embedded devices. It also helps the average consumer
because they get a better product. Judgment in this case needs to be
fair to the consumer, because future cases will look toward this as
a precedent. Please take these steps to ensure that Microsoft is
truly penalized from its years of monopoly activities--including
harsh financial penalties that will resound throughout the computer
industry--and include the recommended steps above to ensure that
Microsoft is never able to do this again.
Catherine Ansbro
236 Pawnee
West Lafayette,
Indiana 47906
MTC-00008096
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:28pm
Subject: (no subject)
I think the Microsoft settlement is fair. Lets get this over
with. There must be more important things to spend our tax dollars
on. FDCartwright.
MTC-00008097
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have no business affiliation with Microsoft. I am simply a
very happy consumer of their products. I have used Microsoft and
competing products for years and I firmly believe that Microsoft's
dominance in the market is the result of a superior product.
Computer software has never been so easy to use and has never been
so integrated.
On the other hand, I am not blind to the mistakes Microsoft has
made. However, I believe the remedies agreed to by Microsoft and the
Department of Justice are more than adequate. The states that have
chosen to not accept the agreement between nine states, Microsoft,
and the Department of Justice are states in which Microsoft's
largest competitors are based. These states are rejecting the
settlement because large corporations in there districts want
Microsoft removed as a competitor, NOT because there is a public
outcry by consumers over how they have been mistreated and
overcharged by Microsoft.
Please accept the proposed agreement and let Microsoft survive.
The alternative remedy proposed by the other nine states would
cripple Microsoft, demoralize their employees, and ruin any
incentive the company has for continued innovation of their
products. It would be a mistake far bigger than the collapse of
Enron.
Branden Hoopes
A happy Microsoft consumer
MTC-00008098
From: Harry E. B. Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe there should be no governmental action of any kind
against Microsoft. I have used a wide variety of Microsoft software
and hardware since 1992. For the moderate amounts of money these
items cost, I have received immense value. These products have made
computing and use of the internet much more efficient and enjoyable.
Instead of penalizing Microsoft, the U.S. Government and the
American people should praise Microsoft for its many innovations,
which have greatly improved American productivity and provided
thousands of good high-tech jobs for Americans.
The anti-trust case against Microsoft is ludicrous--to prove an
anti-trust violation, the government must prove harm to consumers,
and it has failed to do so. From personal experience, I know of no
such harm. Besides, anyone who does not like Microsoft has always
been free to buy Apple products. Thank you for your attention to my
views.
Sincerely,
Harry E. B. Sullivan
MTC-00008099
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First I offer my relevant credentials. My wife and I are retired
residents of South Carolina, owners of 400 shares of Microsoft and
users of Microsoft products in our home computer and previously in
our careers.
I am very grateful for the productivity gains Microsoft has
given all sectors of our economy through the products it has made
available to the consumers at what I believe have been reasonable
prices. Microsoft was also a leader in providing products and
systems that are both compatible and integrated for ease of use by
the consumer.
On the other hand, Microsoft was overzealous in pursuing market
position in the past and the public has a right to expect some
adjustment in Microsoft's behavior.
I believe the settlement agreed to by nine states is fair and
sufficient to control Microsoft's business directions in the coming
years. I encourage the Justice Department to use its influence and
power to bring the other nine states into agreement with the
settlement as well.
Thank you for your attention to my views.
John E. Benecki
MTC-00008100
From: Connie Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a school board member of the McFarland School District. We
are a small school district in Wisconsin and face a difficult time
continuing to provide a world-class education because of climbing
costs and a limited tax base. Funding for computers, hardware and
internet access must be balanced with the other basic educational
and staffing needs in our district.
However, in order to help prepare our students for the jobs,
businesses and the everyday world they will face after graduation,
our district's ability to provide current technological equipment
and training is essential. The proposed Microsoft settlement will
help small schools districts like McFarland provide the technology
our students need to meet the challenges they will face in the
coming years. The settlement not only provides the technology, but
also provides the training so teachers can effectively use the
computers in the classrooms.
Please support the proposed settlement which establishes an
independent foundation to distribute technology funds, computers and
software to those districts in the most need of these essential
resources.
Thank you for your consideration,
Connie Hutchison
5608 Chestnut Lane
McFarland, WI 53558
(608) 838-3728
MTC-00008101
From: Francesco Gallo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft proposed settlement
From: Francesco P. Gallo
216 Hitching Post Dr.
Wilmington, DE 19803
To: CHARLES A. JAMES
Assistant Attorney General
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
I would like to express my gratitude, as a small consumer of PC
products, to the US Attorney Office that in few months has put the
basis for an end to a saga that has attempted to destroy an industry
leader for so many years, and certainly not favoring the consumers
and the economy.
Although I'm not a technician, I have perused the documentation
on the Antitrust Case, and I'm very happy to express as consumer few
comments for the Tunney Act.
It seems appropriate that the remedies invoked by the Proposed
Final Judgment and the Competition Impact Statement are a reasonable
solution to this long war, giving competitors an opportunity to
integrate products and forcing Microsoft to reveal its source code,
without stopping Innovation. In addition, Microsoft would be under
federal monitoring until 2008. It is time for the few States
opposing this settlement to dedicate more of their resources to
support the economy and the innovation that will enhance the
productivity.
Respectfully.
Francesco P. Gallo
CC:Francesco Gallo
MTC-00008102
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing in support of the proposed settlement of antitrust
claims against Microsoft Corporation. As a retired lawyer, I believe
that settlement of these claims is in the best interest of the
taxpayers and the
[[Page 24986]]
American consumer. Far too much money has already been spent
prosecuting questionable claims (although I suppose Judge Jackson's
Order, to the extent upheld by the Court of Appeals, has laid to
rest the questionability of these claims).
I don't believe that the consumer was ever really damaged by any
monopoly power wielded by Microsoft, nor do I believe that any
competitors were seriously harmed by ``monopolistic practices'', if
any, of Microsoft. Having a superior product is not against the law
nor should it be. I seriously doubt that any true unregulated
monopoly exists in the US today, nor has one existed here for a long
time.
It is time to move on to something that will truly make a
difference in the lives of Americans and leave successful businesses
alone.
Robert G Currin, Jr,
225 Springlake Rd,
Columbia, SC 29206
MTC-00008103
From: Harold (038) Dorothy Clinesmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: I feel that it is high time to settle this litigation
and get on with business. It serves no purpose to keep chipping away
at a company that has had such good success at innovations that make
the computer easier to us by the average person. Why keep punishing
a company that has done such a good job just because other companies
didn't have the ability to do the same if they had had the expertise
to do the same first. Lets get on with the business of being a
country that rewards companies and people for doing things that
helps the economy of this free country. Please end this as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Clinesmith
MTC-00008104
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my support of Microsoft and request a
swift and fair completion to their litigation. I am both a consumer
of Microsoft (MSFT) software and in a business that relies in part
on MSFT's success. As a technology professional, I am keenly aware
of the importance of fair competition in our field. Unfair
competition or monopolistic behavior is very damaging to us as it
slows the development and adoption process of new and better
technologies. To this end, I support the prosecution of MSFT and the
success the DOJ has had in getting MSFT to stop their unfair
practices.
On the other hand, there is an overwhelming danger to our
industry if this settlement is drawn out or if the punishment is too
severe. MSFT has created some of the best software products on the
market today. They create millions of jobs and drive billions of
dollars in the U.S. economy. My company and thousands of others are
working with MSFT everyday to expand the technological lead the U.S.
enjoys over other countries. I rely on them to be successful in
selling their software so I can sell consulting services and make my
own company profitable. Punishing them unfairly will hurt many
innocent people, like myself and my employees.
The settlement with MSFT should be focused on assuring they
adhere to open standards for their software and open commercial
arrangements for potential resellers or licensees of their
technology. The technology industry in the U.S. has tried in vain
for years to create a sanctioning organization that everyone
subscribes to--fairly. If there is a single greatest opportunity for
the DOJ to provide a legacy out this huge prosecutorial effort, it
would be in the mandate for the creation of a technology standards
council.
Companies like MSFT, AOL, Oracle, SAP, HP, Sun, etc would all be
required to be involved in and fund this organization. This would
allow the technology industry to police itself with oversight by the
government. Our economy has been hurt enough by recent events. Our
industry is in its worst slump in 10 years. Please do what you can
to reverse this decline, not make it worse.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Brown
Chicago, IL
MTC-00008105
From: William Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a shareholder of Microsoft as you might have guessed. I
favor the settlement, of course.
There is, however, another aspect which I find particularly
disturbing. That is the transmission by the Senate Judiciary
Committee to Judge Kotar-Kelly of the results of their hearings
favoring modification. If ever there was inappropriate interference
by the legislative with the judicial branch this is it. The threat
that the Judge will not get a promotion to higher judicial office
unless she follows their recommendation is palpable. I really hope
you can do something about that.
Bill Browning.
MTC-00008106
From: Ross, Joyce
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 12:22pm
Subject: MSFT
Dear Sirs ... I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft
is both reasonable and fair. We need to allow for innovative
research and expect that the best will rise to the top.
jross
MTC-00008107
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Clinton Administration's going after
Microsoft was not a good thing to do. Microsoft is a very good
company and has made many people successful in their business. Leave
it alone. Let the settlement that has been agreed upon stand.
Sincerely yours,
Rosemary Cleland
Bishop, Ca 93514
MTC-00008108
From: JR LONGMEIER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:37pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
THE SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT NEEDS COMPLETED AS SOON ASS
POSSIBLE AND GET ON WITH BUSINESS. IF THE PREVIOUS A.G. HAD SPENT AS
MUCH TIME HARASSING BIN LADEN AS IT IT DID BILL GATES, I THINK WE
WOULD HAVE A BETTER WORLD TODAY.
MTC-00008109
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to register my support for the proposed Microsoft
Settlement. I think it represents an acceptable way to resolve the
issues.
Jeff Weed
11320 Grenelefe Ave. N.
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
MTC-00008110
From: Theodore Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
The DOJ and majority of states have reached an agreement with
regard to Microsoft. I believe this settlement was in the best
interest of consumers and American business. We as Americans must be
concerned about our global competitiveness and further litigation of
this case will further increase the risk of damaging the competitive
edge we have in computer software. Therefore, I strongly recommend
proceeding with this settlement agreement.
Theodore W Nelson
2812 Shamrock Drive
Allison Park, PA 15101
MTC-00008111
From: Jim Dowling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:38pm
Subject: Enough is truly ENOUGH !! Let's move on and quit wasting
Enough is truly ENOUGH !! Let's move on and quit wasting my tax
dollars as well as the tax dollars of other tax payers
Sincerely,
Jim Dowling
MTC-00008112
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft/ Settlement in the Courts under the Turney Act;
The Contribution that Microsoft has made to the Computer Industry
over the Years, has been phenomenal. Todays Computer expertise by
millions would not have happened if there had not been a system that
had
[[Page 24987]]
some continuity to it, and kept it as simple as possible.
Therefore. I hope that the powers to be will accept the present
settlement that is being offered, and get on with teaching more
people to utilize the computer and its many many advantages. Please
settle now, this has gone on for 4 years too many.
Thank you for listening.
D Noe.
MTC-00008113
From: Eddie Bunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The previous Clinton administration seemed to attack big
business as bad for us private citizens when a lot of folks either
work for those type of companies or related industries. They went
after tobacco, they went after the firearms, and they went after
Microsoft to name a few. They said they were doing it for us, but
most Americans saw through this ruse and realized it was a way the
politicians could bring in more money, through fines, to support
their spending habits. It wasn't about us, it was about money,
money, money for our government. Ultimately, it had a very real and
negative effect on our economy... Enough is enough. When Microsoft
was attacked, it seemed to mark the beginning of our economic
downturn. I thought it then and I believe it now. Why? I'm not sure,
but it falls under weakening consumer confidence. I don't work for a
big company. I'm a small independent businessman. But my feeling is
that the economy is trying to turn around and if this Microsoft case
doesn't continue to drag on, and is settled soon, it will be a big
boost to the American psyche which in turn will help consumer
confidence. We sure could use that right now.
W.E. Bunn
MTC-00008114
From: Jim Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just wanted to voice my opinion regarding the settlement. I
think the settlement is tough but fair. I'm glad to see that this
matter can be settled and that we can all just get back to the
business of making this country a leader in the world. Get on with
it and let the economy recover!
MTC-00008115
From: Barbara Winter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
Re: Review period for Microsoft Antitrust case
As a consumer of Computer software for 20 years, I wish to
express my dismay that special interest groups-primarily Microsoft
competitors-are attempting to derail the Court of Appeals settlement
agreed upon in November of 2001. This settlement is tough, but
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy. Unfortunately, a few special interests are
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
In the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to provide software
developers the necessary access to the code that enables them to
create programs that interact with Microsoft platforms. The new .NET
platform has raised more excitement in world-wide software developer
communities than any previous operating system, in large part
because Microsoft is encouraging developers to innovate, and
supporting them in that effort regardless of their allegiance or
affiliations. This freedom to innovate is essential to American
values. It's good for competition, good for consumers.
Please take a balanced and fair look at how the proposed final
settlement will affect CONSUMERS. That is the group anti-trust laws
were meant to protect.
Thank you,
Barbara Winter
13872 NE 60th Way
Redmond, WA 98052
425-895-8836
MTC-00008116
From: Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:44pm
MTC-00008117
From: Chris Mayhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The last thing this country needs at this point in time is a
prolonged randomizing conclusion to the Microsoft anti-trust case--
let's finish it with the proposed settlement as it stands.
After seeing how decisively the American public reacted to the
horrific acts of September 11, do you (the DOJ) really think that
the people of this nation would support Microsoft or any other
company if we actually thought that their products were designed and
built to our detriment? This must be a time of rebuilding,
economically as well as spiritually, to show the terrorist community
that they have not succeeded in their efforts. Further litigation
against Microsoft would very likely lead to even more stagnation in
the economic markets, and this would surely be viewed by some as a
direct effect of the recent terrorist acts.
Certainly people everywhere, and in particular in the United
States, have become more productive through the use of Windows, the
Internet, and software applications that run on the Windows
operating system. To overlook this economic trend of the past
decade, is a significant oversight.
And finally, to anyone who has not developed software it is
unthinkable that a manufacturer would release a new product, such as
an operating system, that ``didn't work well'' in the marketplace--
it is an economically-driven decision with sharp competitors (such
as AOL and Sun Microsystems in this case) doing all that they can to
take that marketshare. The number of hours and test cases examined
in order to be sure that Windows works well with all of the popular
software products is staggering. Integrating software such as an
internet browser with the operating system, as in this case, is done
in order to raise the quality of the software. This occurs because
common code that is shared between the two software applications
only has to be written once, tested once, documented once,
manufactured once, and sold once. If these same two applications
were not integrated, all of these production facets are doubled.
Eventually support costs double and the price of the software
increases. It is hard to imagine how this latter approach is
ultimately to the benefit of the American public.
Sincerely,
Chris Mayhall, Applied Digital Photography, LLC
MTC-00008118
From: Bill Gish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
With the job losses, Income losses for most citizens, Stock
market down; it is time that when a settlement is reached, for it to
be honored and the individuals who profit, who already have more
income and assets than the average person stop prolonging the final
settlement to enrich their pockets, get votes in their states, to
hold offices that they are unable work and reach agreements with
other government departments. Any system that can't reach an
agreement is shorter time than this should refund their pay for
ineffectiveness. People are losing faith in the over all government.
The auto industry doesn't have compatible parts for interchanging
with other autos, neither the appliance industry, or for that matter
the human body. Every company tries to increase their market, look
what your organization has allowed the Super Stores to do the small
business person. Stop this delay now.
William D. Gish
MTC-00008119
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft--Settlement
THE PFJ IS RIDICULOUS. WHY LET THEM GET AWAY WITH PAST ABUSES
AND GIVE THEM A DEFACTO GOVT APPROVED MONOPOLY GOING FORWARD???
GWS
MTC-00008120
From: Phillip Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ, Complete the Microsoft Settlement. Please settle with
Microsoft to allow Microsoft and the whole electronics industry get
on building their industry. Let the market place decide the winners
and loser--NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
[[Page 24988]]
Thanks,
Phil Young
San Diego, CA 92109
MTC-00008121
From: Alexandra Stocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Justice Department:
Please end the litigation against Microsoft once and for all. As
a taxpayer, consumer, and small business owner, I object to our
government intervening in the free market and persecuting a company
such as Microsoft, one of America's great success stories, whose
only crime was to be too successful.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Stocker
Alexandra Sanderson Stocker
Principal
Sanderson & Stocker, Inc.(R) (formerly Sanderson Capital)
2333 N. Triphammer Rd. #201
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 257-5117
MTC-00008122
From: JD Loden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:52pm
Subject: Resolution
Microsoft has made the technology industry more competitive, and
has demanded that it's competitors achieve excellence. When the
automobile was invented, could we've prevented car makers from
designing cars with four wheels similar to the first car?
Obviously we need a platform, and from this platform competitive
products and services will surface.
J.
D. Comprehensive Business & Personal Financial Planning Services
Naples, FL 941-430-0104, FAX 941-403-9987 EMAIL
[email protected]
Investments offered through Jefferson Pilot Securities
Corporation-Concord, NH
MTC-00008124
From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust suit
I feel this litigation has taken up valuable time and money and
should have been over a long time ago.
Microsoft have been a wonderful intivator. I do not see any gain
for anyone in pursuing this case 1 day further.
Judy Sawyer
[email protected]
MTC-00008125
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I want to commend our government on finally putting this
settlement behind us! I thing that Judge Jackson was way out of line
with his decisions and I applaud the new judge who is showing some
semblance of common sense!
Nick Kozimor
Mansfield, Ohio
MTC-00008126
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:56pm
Subject: msft settlement
I think this settlement is fair & i congratulate doj for it.
MTC-00008127
From: Richard Beckert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hi, I am writting to express my support for the Microsoft
antitrust settlement. I believe it is in the public interest, it
addresses the monopoly maintenance charge upheld by the appelate
court and it is fair and reasonable. While addressing the anti-
competitive behavior, the settlement still allows Microsoft to
innovate and compete with other companies.
In these tough economic times, this is one uncertainty that can
be put behind us. Imposing tougher restrictions on Microsoft could
cost more jobs and cause more uncertainty in the high tech industry.
I believe this settlement is in the best interest of the consumers
and the public. I only wish that all States could have been on board
as oppose to holding out for their own self centered political
gain!!
Sincerely,
Richard D. Beckert
11620 127th. Ave. N.E.
Lake Stevens, WA 98258
(360)653-5464
MTC-00008128
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
I would hope that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their efforts
in developing cyberspace. Thay have done so much, and success should
not deter them from marching forward in their plans to better this
computer age.
Sincerely,
[email protected] Norma Korn
MTC-00008129
From: Charles A Schuster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
MTC-00008130
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I am writing to encourage the that all litigating states be
required to accept the DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
This case has drug on entirely too long and now is only hurting
the economy. The states who are not accepting the settlement are
politically motivated by Microsoft competitors in their respective
states and are not considering the national interest.
Sincerely,
John T. Darling, DDS
MTC-00008131
From: BETH KEMMER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:58pm
Subject: settlement
We should leave them alone!
MTC-00008132
From: Clyde Serda, CC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
Why is the goverment ordering Microsoft to do just what they
sued them for? Giving away software with each computer or giving
away software to public schools. I still leaves out the consumer who
purchased the software. if you can't get it right just drop
it....Clyde Serda
MTC-00008133
From: Reve Carberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Department of Justice,
I believe it is in the interest of the public and the economy
for the case against Microsoft to be settled as proposed in the
agreement crafted with Microsoft by the federal government and nine
states.
Reve Carberry
[email protected]
www.carberrygroup.com
914-277-1103
MTC-00008134
From: Douglas Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think your judgment was fair and just for all!
MTC-00008135
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD GET OFF MICROSOFTS
BACK AND GET BACK TO GETTING THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK. THE STATES
SAY THEY ARE DOING IT FOR THE CONSUMER,WELL I AM A CONSUMER AND I
DON'T THINK THAT MICROSOFT HAS DONE ANYONE HARM. THEY ARE TRYING TO
GET THE BEST PRODUCT TO THE PUBLIC BUT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES
WANT TO TIE THEIR HANDS.
SETTLE THE CASE AND LET GET ON WITH BUSINESS.
L. E. JACOBS,....CONSUMER
MTC-00008136
From: Jim Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
bold>It's time to settle this case and move on to something more
important !/bold>
MTC-00008137
From: Elizabeth Grandy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:08pm
[[Page 24989]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 3, 2001
I think it is about time this ridiculous lawsuit against
Microsoft is settled once and for all. As far as the public is
concerned Microsoft did not do anything detrimental to the public.
The crybaby companies that cannot compete are just trying to get
money from the best software company ever built. Companies like
Microsoft should be free to make their product anyway they see fit.
If the public want to buy the product they will and if not they
won't. The only reason Microsoft has a monopoly is because they are
the best and everyone wants their products (including the US
Government!). This whole suit should have just been thrown out of
court instead of costing Microsoft thousands of dollars in attorney
fees and court cost and the taxpayer also. Please settle this with
as little harm to Microsoft as possible. The suing states and
companies should be the ones paying not Microsoft!
Sincerely,
Gary and Elizabeth Grandy
MTC-00008138
From: John Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
John L. & Patricia A. Carey
4072 Penshurst Park, Sarasota, FL 34235 941-378-8666
[email protected]
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This letter concerns the settlement that was reached earlier
this fall in the Microsoft case. We think that it was a mistake for
the case to have been brought about in the first place and, at this
point, the settlement should be accepted, and the matter put to
rest. No company should be penalized for creative thinking.
This settlement punishes Microsoft more than enough. Microsoft
will be forced to disclose information about the internal working of
Windows, making it easier for computer companies to remove Microsoft
programs and install similar programs from other software vendors.
Microsoft will also be forced to streamline Windows so that other
programs will run as well as their own in the operating system.
Additionally, Microsoft will be obligated not to seek
retribution on any of the firms that originally sued it.
Finally, Microsoft will submit to oversight by a government
committee to ensure that it complies with the terms of the
settlement.
Microsoft has agreed to all of these terms in order to shift its
resources away from legal strategy. We hope that the settlement will
be swiftly finalized and implemented.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John & Pat Carey
MTC-00008139
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAWSUIT
To Whom it may concern:
I believe it is wrong for the government to attack private
business. I also believe the Microsoft finding in mar/Apr of 2000 is
directly responsible for the recession we are in now.
Please quit pursuing this company. They have done nothing but be
a great company, responsible for untold jobs in this country.
Very Truly Yours
Greg Loomer
MTC-00008140
From: Edwin(038)phyllis Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think the government and microsoft should accept the terms of
the settlement. if microsoft is indeed a monoply , we need more like
it. where else can i get a product that me and my family enjoy and
use at work and home every day, that last for years, and costs less
than a hundred dollars.
edwin evans
631 ne washington
lewistown,mt 59457
MTC-00008141
From: Mike Springer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Honorable Sirs:
I have been an independent systems consultant for the last 20 +
years. I have seen IBM screw its customers with predatory activities
and with providing Products did not work very well at all. Yet they
were left unscathed.
Now you have an entrepreneurial company, Microsoft, that has
attempted to make A product that is easy for the relatively
unsophisticated end user that will provide him with all the tools to
use his computer effectively. (That's more than IBM ever thought
of).
Yet, for their ability to meet the market effectively, you have
persecuted them in the name of the people. Your track record is less
than stellar in protecting the people. Would you like to revisit MCI
and ATT. The courts broke up ATT and now we have very little logic
In our phone systems. I can call someone from a pay phone and pay $7
or $8 for a two minute call.
That is working in the best interests of the consumer? I suggest
NOT. Of should we talk about the tobacco settlement fiasco? Ask the
people in your office over 50 years of age what the slang was for
cigarettes. May be we called them ?cancer sticks? or even ?coffin
nails?!
That was over 50 years ago when I was a teenager. I knew they
were deadly then. Let Microsoft due what they can to make end user
use of computers more effective. Ultimately, That will benefit our
society more than a bunch of restrictions and penalties will. Just
get the government out of this mess without spending a ton more in
our tax dollars. It would be far more beneficial for our tax dollars
to go for paying our military, or replenishing our arms inventory.
Respectfully,
Michael Springer
630-202-2921
1800 East Denison Road
Naperville, Illinois 60565
MTC-00008142
From: dinshah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear SIr,
As the Federal Government and the state governments except nine
states have agreed the settlement, the case should be decided on
this settlement basis. To me it is not prudent to waste our
resources at the time of the severe recession in US economy and
World economy with unstable political climate.
Thank You,
Dinesh Shah
MTC-00008143
From: john tabar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:14pm
MTC-00008144
From: Bill Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please drop all of the lawsuits against Microsoft immediately.
This has all been a bogus witchhunt from the start. Let us get on
with trying to make money instead of spending time and money
defending lawsuits that are already totally outdated by the speed of
progress in the technology business.
Bill Wallace
Box 10354 Midland, Tx 79702
MTC-00008145
From: Thomas W. Culbertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want doj to leave Microsoft alone.
MTC-00008146
From: larry schaffel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a proud American and Microsoft shareholder of long standing,
I am highly distressed by the continuing effort by a small, self-
interested group of companies--of which, incidentally, I am also a
shareholder, to continue harassing the efforts of Microsoft to
continue innovating and providing a great service to the public and
the economy as well as its shareholders. I urge those responsible to
accept the recent settlement reached with the justice department and
many states so that we can get the economy and technology industry
back into a growth mode in 2002.
MTC-00008147
From: Irv Alpert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
To quote Mark Da Cunha, is Microsoft a ``predator'' as the
Department of Justice insinuates? A predator is someone like Adolph
Hitler who kills people in
[[Page 24990]]
concentration camps, or a member of the mafia who hunts down a
neighborhood businessman for not obeying his wishes. A predator is
someone who initiates the use of physical force. Microsoft has
pointed a gun at no one. Clearly, a far stronger case for predatory
acts can be made against the Department of Justice-who seeks to
violate Microsoft's rights by taking control over its property--than
for the make-believe ``predatory'' acts Microsoft is accused of.
Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory,
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft
earned its position in the free-market. All real monopolies are the
result of the government giving a business a ``monopoly''--exclusive
control of a given market by outlawing the entry of competitors.
Free competition is not some Marxist, egalitarian, ``perfect'' ideal
where all competitors end up with an equal market share of a given
industry. Whether in sports, or in business, the whole point of
competition is to beat your competitors-even to the point of having
them going out of business. Bigness should not be confused with
monopolistic; size is not a criterion of wrongdoing; success is not
a crime.
Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? Innovation is the process of
discovering a better way to do things. No private business can stop
other companies from innovating except by out-innovating them, or by
buying them out (in the which case the buyer would want the acquired
company to innovate even more). The only way to halt innovation is
by the threat of physical force, which is a legal power that only
governments possess.
Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its competitors? This sloppy
metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the government has the legal power
to twist-and even break-arms. The only ``twisting'' Microsoft
engaged in was the legitimate practice of setting the terms of sale
for its property. By what stretch of the imagination, does the
Department of Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's
refusal to license its products to vendors who do not accept its
terms? This is not coercion because if a vendor refuses Microsoft's
offer and walks away (and he is free to), the vendor will be no
worse off then if he did not deal with Microsoft in the first place.
For a real example of ``arm-twisting'' see what happens when you
refuse to hand over half your income to the IRS next April.
Did Microsoft ``hurt'' competitors like Netscape by giving away
a free Internet browser with its Windows operating system (when
Netscape wanted to charge you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's
bundles its meat patties with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the
bread makers. Such actions may frustrate their competitors wishes,
but their rights are left untouched.
Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the
application of the political principle of individual rights to the
economic realm of production and trade that gives rise to the rules
of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated the
rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
Yet, in the name of ``protecting'' competition, it is these
inalienable rights that the antitrust process ignores in favor of
such subjective considerations as the ``public interest'' (which
fails to include the interests of the millions of members of the
public who do not side with the Department of Justice), the
``consumer interest'' (which the Department of Justice has awarded
itself the title of official spokesperson for), and ``relevant
markets'' (the government defines the relevant market small enough
so that Microsoft becomes a monopoly, even though Microsoft
comprises less then 4% of the computer industry). Such
``protection'' is tantamount to helping a man to see by thrusting
burning coals into his eyes.
By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of
considerations, such as the ``public interest,'' the antitrust laws
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property
against use it against Microsoft's interests. Thanks to the
antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily classified a business as
a ``monopoly'', the government is given free rein to: plunder of
vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account (through triple
fines for so-called ``damages''); replace Bill Gates with a
government ``overseer'' who will make the important strategic
decisions at Microsoft; force Microsoft to advertise and distribute
its competitor's products; compel Microsoft to give up its ``trade
secrets'' and intellectual property to those who condemn it.
From start to finish the entire antitrust process is no more
than a process of sacrificing successful American businesses-such as
Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil--on the guillotine of
egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to quote Alan
Greenspan, who upon a complete examination of the theory and history
of the antitrust laws wrote that ``. . .the effective purpose, the
hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the
United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and
efficient members of our society because they are productive and
efficient.''
The truth of the matter is that Microsoft is not the predator;
Microsoft is the victim. The real predators are the bureaucrats in
the Department of Justice when acting according to the antitrust
laws, second-rate competitors-like Sun, Novell, and Netscape--who
seek to profit from the government's actions (what do they think
will happen when the government under the antitrust laws deems them
``too successful'' in their ``relevant market''?), and the anti-
capitalist intellectuals who support them. Businessmen like Bill
Gates are the one group of minorities that best symbolize the
American way of life: that of a free, moral, rational, capitalist
society.
Irv
Irvine Alpert
Founder, OnviaGuides
Executive Vice President
Onvia, Inc. (www.onvia.com)
1260 Mercer Street
Seattle, WA 98109
(206) 373-9541 direct
(206) 890-9471 mobile
[email protected]
MTC-00008148
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Only the public will be hurt by imposing harsh penalties on
Microsoft. Microsoft has enabled users (individuals) to get the most
out of their computers. The various states Attorney Generals are not
thinking of computer users. Microsoft developed the software should
not be penalized. It is a proprietary. Any other software
manufacturer had this opportunity and, they still have the
opportunities, to develop their own software. Hurting Microsoft will
certainly not be in the best interests of the individual users.
MTC-00008149
From: raymondw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
Please do all you can to settle the Microsoft settlement as
quickly as possible. In these trouble times we need to do what we
can to move forward, and not tie up our resources in court battles.
For the records, I do own Microsoft stock, but I use an Apple
computer. Thanks Raymond Wolf
MTC-00008150
From: Troceen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement, and support this
action being completed expeditiously.
Dan Troceen
MTC-00008151
From: Augenstein, Rob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been following the anti-trust case against Microsoft for
almost four years now and believe that Microsoft did nothing wrong.
The bottom line is that consumers were not harmed. As a user of
Microsoft products, and previously of Netscape Navigator, I actually
benefited. When I was using Navigator, Netscape improved and
expanded the product due to the competitive pressure from Microsoft.
To make a switch in Internet browser compelling, Microsoft had to
make their own improvements. Now that I've switched to Microsoft, I
wouldn't go back to Netscape. What no one involved in this case
seems to see is that people like me benefited because we had choices
and the products available to us were improving at a rapid pace.
It is not necessarily a bad thing if a company has monopoly
power and then tries to use it. It is most certainly a good thing in
fact if a broad base of consumers will benefit. Unfortunately, Judge
Jackson did not see that people like me benefited from Microsoft's
[[Page 24991]]
actions. In fact, I have actually been harmed since the ruling by
Judge Jackson. With Microsoft on the defensive, the pace at which
significant new products have come to market has been slow. I think
the browser was the latest new product genre--and that was 5 years
ago. So I haven't had as much new software to play with as I did
before. More importantly, the ruling initiated a long slide in the
stock market that still continues. Since my investments in the stock
market have declined in value, I have not made further investments
in things for my family like a new car, house or computer. And since
I believe that I am not the only one who has had this happen, I
attribute our country's economic slowdown to the ruling by Judge
Jackson against Microsoft.
I am interested in seeing the economy get back off the ground
and firmly believe that letting Microsoft pursue its free enterprise
strategy of innovating with new products is in our country's
economic interests, both domestically and internationally. I am
hoping you will see things similarly and will move aggressively to
stop the legal challenges aimed at Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Rob Augenstein, CPA
Lighthouse Group http://www.lighthousegroup.com
http://www.lighthousegroup.com/>
800.385.2511
770.512.8990, extension 1015
770.512.8991 fax
MTC-00008152
From: Blake Buzzini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express strong support for the proposed
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The
proposed settlement is reasonable and fair and addresses the issues
found by the Court of Appeals. I also urge you to dismiss the vocal
minority of Microsoft competitors who seek to hobble the company
permanently.
MTC-00008153
From: James Buzzanco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough! Microsoft is one of us. Bill Gates is not Osama Bin
Laden! Microsoft is the philanthropic industrialist of our time. Our
Country and world is better off because of it. Microsoft is the
Einstein of our time. Enough already. Let's get on with life and
progress in the United States as it should be. Don't stifle the
progress of American Citizens. Microsoft is not just one of us, it
is us. Enough!
Sincerely,
James P Buzzanco
MTC-00008154
From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This country was built upon the ability to spend time and effort
to invent and develop new products and ideas. If this is not the
case, we would not have patents, copyrights, etc. I believe we have
provided enough time, effort and lawyers salaries , in developing
the present settlement. This can drag out forever, as the breakup of
Bell Telephone did in the last century. We do not need to duplicate
that mistake in this century.
Bill Williams
MTC-00008155
From: LJ Sweet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
Mircorsoft made the computer work for the commom person at a
price we could afford they should not be punishied for this ``Stop
the political blackmail'' LJSweet Taxpayer
MTC-00008156
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
Doesn't the govt. have enough to do to protect the air
travelling public and its office workers from airplanes used as
bombs than frustrate one of the most dynamic companies in the
world?? It appears to be a question of mixed priorities. The
politicians grandstand at the public expense to ensure their own
continuity. All that posturing on C-span is ludicrous.
MTC-00008157
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am in favor of the settlement agreement reached in the
Microsoft lawsuit. Please allow free enterprise to continue. No
further litigation should be pursued.
thank you. . . . . . . . .sharon doyle
las palmas way
sarasota, florida
MTC-00008158
From: nateandsandra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe that it is definitely in the best interest of the
consumer for the case to be settled. We also feel that Microsoft has
more than demonstrated a reasonable attitude and made every effort
to settle this case, in the consumer's best interest. We are very
tired of hearing all the complaints from Microsoft competitors and
their special interest groups and in-turn the Attorney Generals from
some states that seem to feel that it is their job to side with
Microsoft competitors. We feel that the Microsoft competitors have
the same opportunity in the USA as all businesses. They need to work
a little harder, hire bright, and innovative employees and stop
whining all the time.
Let's get on with getting the economy back on track. Stop
punishing companies for hard work, brains, and innovation.
Thank you,
Nate and Sandra Ribelin
MTC-00008159
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DEAR SIR,
CAN THE NATION AFFORD TO ``FIDDLE WHILE ROME BURNS'' IN THE
MICROSOFT CASE? SURE, COMPETITORS SHOULD GET A SHOT AT THE BRASS
RING, BUT SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE CHOOSING WINNERS AND LOSERS AS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EVOLVE?
THE RACE TO THE NEXT LEVEL WILL BE ``TEMPORARILY'' HELD BY THE
COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL WITH THE MOST AGGRESSIVE MARKETING METHODS AND
THE MOST INNOVATIVE PRODUCT, AND THAT POSITION WILL BE HELD SECURELY
ONLY AS LONG AS IT APPEALS TO CONSUMERS POCKET BOOKS AND COMMON
SENSE.
MICROSOFT WENT ONE STEP FURTHER. THE FOUNDERS OF MICROSOFT
IDENTIFIED THE ONE THING MISSING FROM EARLY PERSONAL COMPUTERS. A
``STANDARD OPERATING SYSTEM'' THAT COULD BE USED AS A PLATFORM FOR
FUTURE GROWTH WAS A ``MUST HAVE'' ITEM. MICROSOFT EXPLOITED THE IDEA
OF A STANDARD OPERATING SYSTEM. EVOLUTION AND ADDITIONS WOULD APPEAL
TO CONSUMERS WHO WANTED A COMPUTER TO DO THINGS FOR THEM EASIER THAN
THE WAY THEY DID THE TASK AT PRESENT. THUS, THE MASS APPEAL FOR THE
PC WAS CREATED, ALONG WITH AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY TO SERVE THE DEMAND
FOR MORE AND MORE FEATURES AND FASTER AND FASTER SPEEDS.
A WHOLE INDUSTRY DEPENDS ON THE STANDARDS. CONSUMERS SIGHED WITH
RELIEF! AT LAST THE COMPUTER COULD BE UPGRADED EASILY. ACTUAL WORK
COULD BE DONE. HOW MARVELOUS! MICROSOFT RESPONDED TO THE DEMAND BY
LOOKING THE OTHER WAY WHEN BOOTLEG COPIES WERE ADDED TO OTHER
MACHINES. CREATING A STANDARD WAS THE KEY TO FUTURE SUCCESS. LET THE
BOOTLEGGING CONTINUE. ALONG THE WAY MORE FEATURES WERE ADDED AS PART
OF THE PACKAGE (BUNDLING), AND CONSUMERS LOVED IT. WALMART DOES THE
SAME THING AND CONSUMERS LOVE IT!
WHY DO THEY LOVE IT? SIMPLE, IT'S CHEAPER!! MARKETS WORK THAT
WAY. SO WHY MUCK IT UP?
MTC-00008160
From: Sue Shannon-Biddiscombe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I want to see this case settled immediately and with as little
disruption to Microsoft as possible. Microsoft has not taken
advantage of consumers; on the contrary, Microsoft has always
provided the best products and progressively lower prices. Frankly,
if I turn on a computer and do not see the Microsoft logo, I will be
very concerned about what I am getting myself into. It only makes
sense to have a standard software so computers can communicate. The
last thing this country (and World) needs is several different
platforms. Deregulation is not working to consumer advantage in
telecommunications or utilities. Sometimes it makes sense to have
uniform service.
[[Page 24992]]
Sincerely,
MTC-00008161
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
--I am a firm beleiver in free enterprise system. The goverment
has a right to watch the adventures of large compnaies to insure our
competiveness. I do not want the goverment to take over the running
of the system as a whole.We need companies that are adventureses.
The system of private entrepnreship is the best for the United
States. Ask any one in the goverment run venture.
Thank you
Jim Ryan.
James Ryan Email: [email protected]
New Mexico State Univ. Voice: 505-646-1641
Box 30001, MSC 3545 Fax: 505-646-1253
Las Cruces, NM 88003
MTC-00008162
From: Richard H. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello: I am a Microsoft user of many products. Specifically,
WindowsXP, WindowsME, OfficeXP . I have been a Microsoft software
user since I started using a PC--back in 1991.
I feel that my use of a computer has been greatly enhanced by
the Microsoft Operating Systems and other compatible software. I
think that it is competitively priced and think that my computing
experience would be greatly LESSENED if there was not a company such
as Microsoft that offered excellent functionality and compatibility.
The number of software offerings that DO NOT talk to each other
(compatibility) would have seriously damaged the business workplace
and greatly increased costs.
Microsoft, for all of its faults, which are few in comparison to
other large companies--provides Industry Standards so critical to
anyone using a PC.
I would like to know what remedies AOL is under in not making
their Email and Instant messaging software compatible with the
majority of the industry? AOL clearly has the market share in the
Online Subscriber area--Where are the ``government encouragements''
for AOL to join in an industry standard?
The tremendous cost of litigation for Microsoft, The Federal
Government, The States should indicate that it is time to close this
chapter soon. It is hard to see how the consumer has been harmed by
the invention of integrated WORKING software that is very
competently supported (technically).
Lets get on with productive endeavors--the introduction of new
products and the encouragement of innovation and not hamper one of
the most successful and profitable AMERICAN companies.
Thank you
MTC-00008163
From: Richard A. Arrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a patent attorney and a Microsoft product user. I am glad
that the Federal Government finally settled with Microsoft. I think
that the settlement should go through and we should let Microsoft
get back to improving their products and making the competition
improve theirs.
Richard A. Arrett, Esq.
Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A.
6109 Blue Circle Drive
Suite 2000
Minnetonka, MN 55343-9185
USA
Phone: (952) 563-3000
Facsimile: (952) 563-3001
E-Mail: [email protected]
MTC-00008164
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:32pm
Subject: On Microsoft..
Attn: USDOJ
As a taxpaying citizen I would like to say I'm dissapointed that
all this effort is being placed to investigate an honest company
such as Microsoft. It has broken no laws. Microsoft's competitors
are only upset that they have been beaten in the business market.
They can't compete against Microsoft so now they want the US to
control Microsoft in order to level the playing field. The playing
field was already fair, and they lost.
Please allow Microsoft to continue running the company as it has
done, without violating any laws, which ultimately benefits the
people.
Don't allow this to continue.
Thank You,
Sam Torres
MTC-00008165
From: Brett and Angela Wharton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ representitive,
I would like to voice my opinion as an ``average consumer''
concerning the antitrust stettlement with Microsoft. I work in the
computer industry developing new servers and PCs for a major
computer manufacturer, and I have been using computers for over 12
years (ever since the days of 9600 baud modems and BBS's). Obviously
I have seen a lot of changes over the years in our industry.
Having said that I will make my observations concerning
Microsoft and the antitrust case. Microsoft has put out some great
software over the years, but it is painfully obvious that their
focus has shifted from designing great software for the industry to
designing software that garners more money, power, and influence
over the industry. I remember the days when the software industry
flourished with creativity and unique ideas from many different
companies. I was always excited about the newest titles and ideas
that were being put forth year to year. Microsoft was at their best
in this environment, and it would be unfair to say that they did not
contribute to the boom of the PC industry around the world.
Unfortunately Microsoft's business practices have also done a
severe injustice to both America and the computer industry at large:
Their unchecked monopoly power has stifled the creativity and
competitive environment that they thrived in. Their continued
bundling of Microsoft only software is no longer helpful to the
consumer, but in fact it serves to limit choice and crush
competition before it even starts.
As an example, when CNET recently reviewed browsers on their
website (www.cnet.com), they graded Opera, Netscape, and Internet
Explorer on several fronts: ease of installation, feature set,
usability, etc.. Internet Explorer won the comparision, but what is
interesting is that CNET concluded that it was basically a tie
except for 2 facets: Internet Explorer comes preloaded on PCs so the
installation was therefore easiest and cleanest, and its integration
with the OS made it much more stable. I say that is unfair.
Microsoft's mantra is that ``integration is innovation and is good
for the consumer''. If that is the case, then why don't they
integrate MS Office, since that is the most useful feature set for
the user outside of the OS itself? I'll tell you why, because they
would loose $300 per license on the Office Suite.
So why is it ok to integrate Internet Explorer, Messenger,
Passport, Media Player? Because they have direct competition in
these areas (i.e. Netscape, AOL Messenger-ICQ-Yahoo Messenger, and
Real Media Player to name the obvious ones). Microsoft must not be
allowed to use their OS platform monopoly to undercut their
competition like that!
It is my strong opinion that Microsoft neither regrets, nor
intends to change, their business tactics or their corporate
behavior. It is also my opinion that the proposed settlement plays
right into Microsoft's hand--that they will be able to skate around
the words and ambiguities in the agreement to maintain their status
quo, and therefore their monopoly. I am sad to see that the
possibility exists that they will get off ``scott free''. For what
its worth, I think they should be held to the carpet and made to see
the error of their practices. I propose Microsoft be required to do
the following:
1) Offer a stripped down version of Windows at a much cheaper
price, and allow OEM computer makers to bundle whatever they want
with the OS at the Factory Level.
2) Be required to share APIs and protocols that a competitor
would need to know in order to develop a stable competitive product.
Microsoft should also not be allowed to ``tweak'' their OS in such a
way that it ``accidentally'' breaks competing software titles.
3) They need to be publicly convicted of their behavior!
Examples are VERY necessary, and if we don't punish Microsoft's
behavior then other industry players will follow their ``example''
of success.
Do we really want that?
In conclusion, I respectfully ask that we please uphold the law
and punish them for the violations that they have committed. Only
then will creativity flourish again in our industry.
Thank you for your time,
Brett Wharton.
[[Page 24993]]
MTC-00008166
From: Sean Flynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:33pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern regarding the matter of United States v.
Microsoft Settlement,
In general I believe the terms of the agreement are fair and
just. It should be noted that NO other company in this industry
provides the levels of access to source code and API's as defined in
this agreement. This includes the Java platform which unfairly has
been described as a ``community'' of vendors. The Java platform is a
significant competitor to Microsoft and is a proprietary
implementation that falls under the sole discretion of Sun
Microsystems in how it is used and by whom it is disclosed to.
Two significant factors should be examined when considering the
fairness of this agreement: the merits of the original case made to
the courts and the current climate of competitiveness. On the first
point the main case against Microsoft was concerning the
anticompetitive actions against Netscape. Upon examining the history
of Netscape one can easily see that it was purchased by a
significant competitor of Microsoft, AOL, and then purposely
dismantled the company to prevent it from effectively competing. It
should be noted that Netscape, after the purchase by AOL, did not
release a major version of their browser until just a few months ago
after the Microsoft verdict was overturned on appeal. Obviously it
was in AOL's best interest to show that Netscape was harmed by
Microsoft so they purposely prevent the product from moving forward.
On the second point the computer operating systems marketplace is
extremely competitive. Depending on how you distort the figures you
can make them say anything you want them to. The normal statistic
quoted it that 95% of the operating systems run on Intel PC
processors is Microsoft. If you broaden this to say what operating
system do most end users interact with: IBM mainframe OS's. If you
look at what operating system most transactions are processed on:
IBM mainframe OS's. If you look at what most Internet sites and
applications run on: UNIX. When you look at the whole computer field
you can easily see that the it is a very competitive environment.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Sean Flynn
MTC-00008167
From: Earl Helbig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With all the important matters facing our nation, it is time we
act on a Microsoft settlement that favors innovation and protects
competition. Dragging out this settlement is not in the national
interest. Let us have closure at once.
Sincerely,
Earl G. and Ruth E. Helbig
MTC-00008168
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:35pm
Subject: microsoft
the agreement between microsoft and the doj should let stand.
the country is in a rfecession now and perhaps the agreed settlement
could hel0p to allow everybody to get back to work and the doj to
tackle more meaningful cases. i knows a lot of people and all with
computers and i have never heard,not one, complain that windows
software was too high. i don't know where that came from.
yours very truly,
philip damner.
MTC-00008169
From: Paul F. Poelker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The agreement reached between Microsoft, the nine states
involved, and the Federal Government addressed in the Court of
Appeals ruling should be ACCEPTED.
It is time to stop any further litigation in this case and
finalize the above mentioned agreement.
Paul F. Poelker
Dallas, TX
MTC-00008170
From: Linda Welshons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this destructive and unjustified lawsuit now.
Microsoft has done nothing to harm customers. They enjoy popularity
because their products work and are inexpensive. Their competitors
want to charge high prices and are fighting to protect them. This
suit does not serve the American people. It is a waste of our tax
dollars and it is destructive to the economy.
Linda Welshons
MTC-00008171
From: Valda Redfern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sir,
Microsoft has done nothing wrong. It has EARNED its
``monopoly''. Nobody has ever been forced to buy Microsoft products;
every single one of Microsoft's millions of customers chose to buy
them. You can get computers that don't come bundled with MS--I used
to use them all the time in my work. If most people prefer computers
that do come bundled with MS, that's because Microsoft offers them a
value.
If the government of its own country, the freest in the world,
continues to victimise it, what hope will Microsoft have in Europe?
Yours truly,
Valda Redfern
17 St Laurence Road
Bradford on Avon UK BA15 1JQ
MTC-00008174
From: Espey, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe that ANY settlement against Microsoft is just.
In fact, I believe if anything the US government owes reparations to
Microsoft for the damage that was caused over the past year and a
half. Bill Gates should be revered as our greatest man, not spit on
and insulted at the behest of jealous and less wealthy billionaires
(Larry Ellison, Steve Case, Scott McNealy, et al).
Thank you for your time and consideration
John Espey
MTC-00008175
From: Matthew Ballin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please defend the free market by not persecuting Microsoft for
being more successful than its competitors. America has risen to
greatness by leaving the talented and productive alone to do what
they do best; an attack against Microsoft is an attack against our
founding principles.
Regards,
Matthew Ballin
MTC-00008176
From: Norm Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I write in support of the current settlement agreement between
the US DOJ and Microsoft. Please defend it assiduously against
further corrosion by the judge(s) and/or the remaining states
attorneys general.
MTC-00008177
From: Auren Hoffman (BridgePath)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
Though I am a huge believer in free markets, I do not believe
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is a the best solution. Microsoft
is a wonderful company staffed by wonderful people, but they are
guilty of some very grave anti-competitive violations. Moreover, the
PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for its
remedies.
Best,
Auren Hoffman CEO, BridgePath Corporation
Auren Hoffman BridgePath
http://www.bridgepath.com/>
463 Bryant Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107
dir: 415-946-6019
The BridgePath Exchange enables staffing firms to monetize
unfilled job orders and unplaced candidates
CC:'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov'
MTC-00008178
From: John Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The attached article I wrote to illustrate my concern for the
Microsoft suit. Please read it and include it in the record of the
public comments.
[[Page 24994]]
Thanks
John E. Arnold
John E. Arnold
2521 SW Pepperwood Ct Topeka, KS 66614
Mr. Walter Mossberg WSJ via email: [email protected]. Re: The
Microsoft Case I read your column regularly and usually enjoy what
you offer. I wrote this piece a bit ago on the Microsoft Case as my
perspective. I'm moved to send it to you after your piece today on
Microsoft costing consumers. I don't think so.
The U.S. Justice Department in its zeal to protect the anti-
trust laws has destroyed about two trillion dollars worth of the
nation's economy. It has done more damage than Castro, Saddam
Hussein, global warming, and the last five hurricanes. Defenders of
the Justice Department will say, ``Yeah, right. Those stocks were
over priced.'' Those need to recall that the Great Depression was
caused, historians and economists uniquely agree, by the actions of
the U.S. regulators misjudging their actions' impacts. The Justice
Department is wrong and wrong-headed on the issue. Microsoft has,
arguably more than any other firm, made the so-called New Economy,
and brought unparalleled economic health to the country. Moreover it
has made the use of the computer seamless.
Contrast Microsoft with the AT&T breakup. I had the joy of
starting a new agency in 1986, just after the breakup of AT&T and
the creation of all the entities necessary to get phone service.
Where before that you called ``the phone company'' and ordered
``phones and phone service and maintenance,'' afterwards you called
the phone company and could get only local service. When you asked
for long distance, they said you have to call someone else.
Surprised, you asked who to call, who was out there? You were told,
``I can't tell you that.'' When you asked about phones, you were
told you had to go somewhere else. But again, they couldn't tell you
where. Maintenance of the lines? Somewhere else.
So while before we had a seamless, wonderfully efficient phone
system, all bundled together, afterwards we had to become
knowledgeable about phones, knowledgeable about long distance,
knowledgeable about maintenance of lines, knowledgeable about all
the disparate pieces. It no longer was easy and quick. It will be
worse with an unbundled Microsoft.
Think of the complexity if Microsoft had not bundled operating
system with software with Internet connections. I had an early
microcomputer. Not all the software was compatible with it. I had to
become knowledgeable of arcane details I wasn't interested in
learning, and this was a simple machine. I wanted to spend my time
using the machine, as a productivity tool. As the PC has progressed
and the seamlessness has progress--largely through Microsoft's
efforts--I am more and more able to use my time the way I want--in
applications. I don't want to have to go to one store for my
computer, another for my operating system, another for my software--
which may not work with other software--and another for the Internet
connection.
That's a wrong-headed approach, a step backward from
productivity. In fact, I think no judge, attorney, or justice
working on the case should be allowed to do so unless they are the
systems operator of the computer of their family or office, and
routinely add software, software upgrades, and computer
enhancements. No one who doesn't know firsthand the complexity of
determining which component of the mix of hardware, middleware, and
software is the incompatible one can say that forced unbundling is a
good idea.
Incredibly, I heard Judge Jackson interviewed on NPR and he said
he didn't know what kind of operating system his computer at home
had. He said it wasn't a Mac. The interviewer was incredulous and so
was I that the man we allowed to make the most critical judgment on
the integrated operating system and the industry had so little
knowledge.
In fact, most attorneys in my experience do not even do their
own keyboarding. They rely on dictation or hand written legal pads.
None who do business that way are sufficiently grounded in the
technology to be involved in the case.
Many have written articles offering evidence that the Justice
Department is on the wrong track. The evidence of pricing: a
monopoly would have raised the prices, and the evidence is clear the
prices of software and of operating systems and of computers have
declined. That early computer I bought cost me $2,000. It had less
power than today's Hewlett Packard calculator. Today we can buy a
personal computer with power of a 1975 Cray machine (which the U.S.
government prohibited from being sold to a foreign nation as an
issue of national security) for less than $1,000, some less than
$500. That's not the workings of a monopoly and the Justice
Department and the Judge must not be seeing clearly as theses
impacts are relevant.
Byte editor Jerry Pournelle recounted the competitive wars and
the bad business decisions made by the competitors of Microsoft,
when they were strong and Microsoft was weak, allowing the Microsoft
innovations to make inroads into markets others had sewn up, the
better product beating out the inferior. That's what innovation and
creativity in an atmosphere of freedom is supposed to do. Microsoft
was inconsequential to IBM and to Apple and they didn't surpass
either by monopoly tactics but by building products that served
consumers. Pournelle pointed out several products that commanded the
market and failed to take advantage of it, while Microsoft built a
better one. VisiCalc was the spreadsheet lead (it was on the first
computer I bought), then Lotus 1-2-3 had the lead and let it slip,
and now Excel is dominant, as is Word, having innovated beyond Word
Pro, WordStar, Wordperfect and others.
Attacking Microsoft for its successes as excesses of power is
just plain factually wrong. And it's wrong-headed. I hope you find
that of some use.
Sincerely,
John Arnold
MTC-00008179
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
It is about time that the federal government reached an
agreement with Microsoft. American economy need to move forward,
continued lawsuit against Microsoft is counterproductive to the
economy.
Sincerely,
Hikaru Okubo, PE
MTC-00008180
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's roll. Settle the Microsoft Court litigation. I agree with
the law as stated in the Tunney Act.
Barbara Reinoehl
MTC-00008181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft Alone! Lets put our energies into creating not
destroying. Lets get to work on helping everyone in the world get
connected. There are universes of technology waiting to be
discovered.
Beverly Sky
http://www.beverlysky.com
MTC-00008182
From: Mildred Weiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:51pm
Subject: Netscape Litigation
Good Luck!
VTY MMW
MTC-00008183
From: John Ritchie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Microsoft got its start in inovation and is contionous in these
veins to build a strong company. Why must costly and unnessary
leagal actions persist, even after bush administration and fedral
government has endorsed the completion of this juducial wrangaling.
Please for the world, nation, states, company, and mostly for the
high cost that consumers will pay stop this wastful investigation!
This matter will only give money to a handful of lawyers and hope to
further the careers of some prosicutors who hope to use this as a
platform from which to aide their political ambitions. It has grown
time to resolve and rebuild not wound and drive at the very heart of
U.S. economic strienght, where market influence can and will over
time reduce this to a non-issue. Please urge all states to have a
hands off approch to this matter. In hopes that these comments can
help you decide.
John B. Ritchie
Carlisle, MA. 01741
MTC-00008184
From: Jeff Hatfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 l:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 24995]]
Greetings,
I wish to express my view that the Microsoft Corporation is
right and the U.S. government is wrong in its Antitrust case.
It is my opinion that the U.S. government should stop wasting my
tax dollars to persecute Microsoft's alleged ``Antitrust''
violation. Antitrust is just a means for envious politicians to cut
down successful businesses that supply the public with goods that
are in popular demand. Antitrust is a throwback to a fabian
socialistic era that sacrificed the demands of the consumers to the
demands of the politicians. Any settlement terms are a compromise of
the right to the wrong. That is if you believe that a free market is
right... If I were Bill Gates, I would ``settle'' this case by
offering to close down Microsoft, instead of prostrating myself to
the incompetent.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hatfield
P.O. Box 2151
Windermere, Florida 34786
MTC-00008185
From: Quinn Woodworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:56pm
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
The anti-trust assault on Microsoft is immoral and anti-
American. The government is attempting to punish Microsoft for the
same moral values that have helped make America the beacon of the
world: hard work, creativity, achievement. Unlike kings of the past
and governments of the present, Microsoft has acquired its wealth--
not by confiscation--but by production, by creating products that
people want to buy. Politicians have been bought by Microsoft's
competitions to bring suit against Microsoft. Since they are unable
to compete fairly then they resort to gaining political pull. Then
government pawns can cripple their opponent for them. That's what
this anti-trust suit against Microsoft is all about. It has nothing
to do with serving the public. If the government truly was
interested in the public good, it would leave Microsoft alone and
the government would stop interfering by ``regulating'' business.
All the government does is cripple some business so their
competitors can take over.
The anti-trust suit should be abolished.
Microsoft should be left alone.
Quinn Woodworth
MTC-00008186
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are sick and tired of Senator Hatch and his Utah competitors
of Microsoft make Microsoft and the government spend so much time on
this issue. After all microsoft has done all the work to bring this
computer business to so many millions of people around the world
that to let these politicians keep this issue alive is a travisty.
Only the nasty lawyers get anything out of it. And our government
looks stupid!
Very truly yours,
Mr. Richard FitzSimmons
MTC-00008187
From: vince duschean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:52pm
Subject: micrsoft settlement
To whom it may concern at the justice department. Please settle
the suit you have with microsoft as you have outlined. The only
advantage continuing this or other suits against Microsoft goes to
other non-performers in the software business like SUN-Micro systems
and Oracle who have not delivered and continue to blame others for
their failures.
MTC-00008188
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:52pm
Subject: Settlement
I firmly believe that this whole Microsoft thing has gone on too
long. Since the government and nine states have come to a
settlement, I see no reason to drag this whole thing on.
Our country has bigger problems that trying to crucify one
corporation. Let the government's decision stand and put this matter
to rest.
Jo Ann Feikes
Las Vegas, NV
MTC-00008189
From: Dick Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am in agreement with the microsoft settlement. Let's not waste
any more government money on this matter.
R.F.Jensen
MTC-00008190
From: Ricky Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Speaking as a private citizen on the proposed Microsoft
Settlement, I strongly support the DOJ's proposed settlement and
urge all concerned to accept it as the final arbitration of the
dispute in question.
Ricky Morris, MCSE Microsoft Small Business Server Support,
Las Colinas, TX
* 469-775-7290 (Direct Line)
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00008191
From: Bruce Rogovin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sir,
I am writing regarding the proposed settlement between Microsoft
and The US Dept. Of Justice.
I find it totally unacceptable to not put Microsoft in a
position where it is unable to pursue the immoral and unethical
business practices that it has shown itself prone to. I read the
findings of fact that were released by the judge months ago, and was
dumbfounded that any company could get away with the actions that
Microsoft took. Anyone involved with the case should re-read these
statements of fact that show Microsoft as a monopolistic predator
with almost unlimited power. A viewing of the video taped
depositions of Bill Gates would convince anyone of the 100% sleaze
of Gates and Microsoft. They will do anything to increase their
power if left unchecked.
Please take the appropriate measures to remedy the situation.
Microsoft should be broken into smaller companies that do not have a
death grip on the tech market. If this is too drastic, at least do
something that makes a difference and restores competition.
Sincerely,
[email protected]
Dr. Bruce Rogovin
8686 Winton Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45231
MTC-00008192
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, BILL GATES WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A VERY
USEFUL COMMUNICATIONS TOOL TO VERY LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WORLD
WIDE. THE SAYING IS SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T
SEEN THAT HAPPEN IN PAST YEARS.
I'M VERY THANKFUL TO BILL. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE COMPUTER BUT
MANAGE TO GET AROUND WITH THE BASICS. THE COMPUTER HAS PROVIDED ME
MANY HOURS OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A TOUGH TIME MANAGING ITS SELF, SO IT
SHOULDN'T TAKE ON OTHER COMPANIES. ENOUGH TAXPAYERS' MONEY HAS BEEN
SPENT ON THIS CASE MAKING ATTORNEYS SUPER RICH. HOW ABOUT WE FEED
AND CLOTH THE POOR?
THANK YOU,
DRUE
MTC-00008193
From: Otto Dieffenbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Seems about right. Now lets get on with the economy!
MTC-00008194
From: Melinda York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:00pm
Settlement is good do it now. Enough time and money has been
wasted on all this needless litigation. Imagine in the one country
in the world where creativity and imagination can lead the way to
tremendous development of new technology and creation of jobs for
people, where the government is going after and murdering and
stifling one of the largest and most successful companies of its
kind. Leave Microsoft alone so it can continue to create jobs and
new technology in the world and especially in the US where we need
it now. Get off their back and let us recover this weak and sad
economy. YOU the government are using my money for the wrong things.
Thank you.
[[Page 24996]]
MTC-00008196
From: David Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
As a concerned citizen, I wish to use the public comment period
regarding the Microsoft Settlement to comment as follows.
1/Discharge AOL Complaints: With reference to the 1995 case of
AOL vs Microsoft regarding bundling of the MSN on-line service with
Windows 95, AOL claimed that this bundling would make it difficult
for AOL to succeed in the on-line market, and so it was anti-
competitive. The case was overturned. Since 1995, AOL has achieved
approximately 80% market share, and built profits that enabled them
to acquire Netscape and Time-Warner (one of the largest mergers of
all time). Therefore, it's clear that bundling MSN with Windows 95
was not anti-competitive.
AOL's role as an injured party in the current Microsoft case is
disingenuous. In fact, history shows that after MSN was bundled with
Windows 95, on-line services became more pervasive, companies like
AOL boomed, and consumers obtained services more easily because
connectivity infrastructure was included with Windows. The pervasive
nature of this infrastructure in Windows made it possible for a
generation to participate in the ?internet revolution?, which
yielded significantly greater consumer benefits than the closed
nature of (for example) AOL, MSN, and CompuServe, as these existed
in 1995.
2/Discharge Netscape Complaints: I understand that the current
case against Microsoft is based on a complaint that Netscape's
browser market was damaged by the bundling of Internet Explorer with
Windows, and that this was not in the public interest.
In fact, Netscape's browser (Navigator) was free (like Internet
Explorer), so the business that may have been damaged was non-
existent. If Netscape chose to base their market on a zero-price
commodity, that's bad management on their part, not Microsoft's
fault. AOL now bundles Netscape Navigator as part of their service,
which is clearly in consumers? interests, just as the bundling of IE
with Windows.
If such bundling had not taken place, it's believable that the
?internet revolution? may have been delayed, as people would have
been required to purchase separate pieces of software, and figure
out significant technical complexities in order to go on line. Not
having a browser in the internet age is like having a car without an
engine ? the Internet would be useless. Therefore, it's unthinkable
that a software company with vision and leadership would NOT bundle
a browser as a fundamental base technology. Obviously Microsoft's
actions benefited consumers, and did not damage any then-existing
revenue stream for other companies. On the contrary, Microsoft made
a contribution to the entire US economy by helping to drive
connectivity and Internet browsing as base functionality available
to all consumers.
3/Discharge ?Monopolistic behavior? complaints: In 1991 I worked
for Chevron (oil company) and attended a forum for the top customers
of the Lotus Corporation (spreadsheet software vendor). At the time,
Microsoft Excel and Word had negligible share in a market dominated
by Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, and Microsoft was trying to encourage
all software vendors to produce applications with a graphical user
interface (GUI), to make it easier for consumers to use their
software.
At this 1991 forum, Mr Manzi, then Lotus CEO, gave a keynote
speech in which he spent 45 minutes explaining why users did not
need a GUI, and why Lotus would not have a Windows version of their
spreadsheet. He was followed by Mr Peterson, then CEO of WordPerfect
Corporation, who presented almost the same speech about why
WordPerfect users did not need a GUI.
Obviously, both these companies were wrong about what their
consumers required. The fact that Microsoft Excel and Word have
replaced Lotus and WordPerfect as market leaders is a result of bad
business management, and wrong strategic decisions by Microsoft's
competitors. It is not due to monopolistic behavior, as Microsoft
did not have a monopoly in spreadsheets or wordprocessors. The
success of Excel and Word is became these are superior products, not
because of behavior that makes Microsoft a threat to the public
interest.
Conclusion: While it's true that Microsoft is an aggressive
company, I cannot understand why their vision, commitment, and
resulting success should be held against them. Windows has
approximately 80% of the operating system market. Logically, this
means that Windows should get credit for 80% of the success in
making computers pervasive, and the resulting benefits to consumers
and the US economy. The only entities that could benefit if the
Microsoft Settlement is overturned are a small number of companies
that compete with Microsoft. I am convinced that these companies
have their own management to blame for any perceived lack of
success, and in many cases (like AOL/Netscape), they are actually
more successful as a result of Microsoft's market position.
Please resist the self interests of the companies that complain
against Microsoft, and consider the enormous progress that has been
made in consumer-oriented computing in the past few years while
Microsoft has been providing vision, leadership, and superior
software.
Dave Berry
MTC-00008197
From: Lynne Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I would like the Microsoft case to be settled and have no
further litigation.
Thank you,
Lynne Garvie
MTC-00008198
From: Albert Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam/Sir:
I cannot accept without writing the settlement agreed to by the
Department of Justice.
The usual expectation is that when a property crime is
committed, the perpetrator is required to restore the ill-gotten
gain. And, after that, the perpetrator is punished.
The proposed settlement does not begin to approach restoration
of a comeptitive environment for computer operating systems. Nor for
computer applications. The breakup of Microsoft looked like a
reasonable start to me. While hardly the total punishment deserved,
it certainly was the proper starting point.
I hope you will refuse to accept the DOJ agreement with
Microsoft. We deserve better service from our system of justice.
Yours truly,
Albert O. Howard
MTC-00008199
From: Mike Zyskowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement proposed by Microsoft should be agreed
to and accepted by the Federal Government.
Michael K. Zyskowski
MTC-00008200
From: Ron and Lucy Flenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are sending you this e-mail to ask that the Justice Dept
accept and approve of the settlement that has been made with
Microsoft recently. We believe that the settlement is kinda tough,
but fair and reasonable to all sides. To delay the instrumentation
of this settlement would only serve to delay final justice.
Sincerley,
Ron and Lucy Flenner
Louisville, IL 62858
MTC-00008201
From: Jearl R. Waddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please insure that the Microsoft settlement is carried out and
not derailed. The settlement is good for the consumer and the
country.
Thank You,
Jearl R. Waddell
115 Lauderdale Road
Woodbury, NJ 08096
MTC-00008202
From: Sparky Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After observing this case for four year, it's time to settle,
and let America and Microsoft return to work. This case has gone on
long enough. The proposed settlement properly restricts Microsoft's
business practices without the extreme penalties being asked for by
some.
Byrne Sanford
Sammamish, Washington
Sparky Sanford
[[Page 24997]]
PI
425 889-1615
MTC-00008203
From: Tempel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
Please accept the Microsoft settlement as is. My family believes
that this is a tought but fair settlement. And any more delays to
getting this behind us is going to be bad for our economy and bad
for our belief in the fairness of our justice system!
Bob Tempel
Sherman, IL
MTC-00008204
From: web blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
``((hey associate top boxes))'' ``9job code; NO5rc-en)'' ``99hey
pay per view channels cable net microsoft at&t time warner comcast
puget sound technology microsoft what is the innovation I.D. code
dismissed or ignored or brushed off it is mine govt))''
(((signed, RICHARD JOHN FRANK 1-4-2002)))
MTC-00008205
From: Lou F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I feel that Microsoft has done everything right, he has worked
on this project form many, many years, There should not have been
any settlement on this company at all. As for how much, 1.00 US
dollar should be more then enough. Leave this man alone, and let him
bring us into the furture. That is all I have to say.
MTC-00008206
From: Jean Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:14pm
Subject: Litigation, submitted 1-3-2002
To Whom It May Concern:
It is my belief from the information I have read That this has
been going on too long. The freedom of progress has been slowed, and
the publicity has been mostly adverse. It is time to close this
matter and get on with regular daily business for the sake of
promoting our economy. Microsoft is one of the most generous
business firms in the world, and should be a promotion business to
follow.
Sincerely submitted,
M. Jean Thompson,
2034 E. No Crescent,
Spokane, Wa 99207
The greatest of these is LOVE!
MTC-00008207
From: Susan Barba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This is to urge you to please settle the Microsoft case without
further delay and litigation. As an American consumer, I believe the
settlement is fair and is to the benefit of the American public.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Susan Elizabeth Barba
MTC-00008208
From: David Eckman
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please submit the following comments to the Judge hearing this
matter: I urge you NOT to approve the settlement terms with
Microsoft that the federal government has negotiated. Following are
several reasons and suggested order terms, based on my extensive use
of personal computers in my law practice since 1983-84 and my
knowledge of and experience with many operating systems and a wide
variety of computer software, as well as in developing software:
I and millions of other OS/2 users have been damaged by
Microsoft's illegal use of tying agreements and other illegal
conduct to gain a monopoly and its retaliatory and predatory use of
its monopoly power against OS/2 (and other operating systems). Based
on my experience and knowledge of the industry, what I believe will
punish Microsoft most effectively while also stimulating competition
would be an order directing Microsoft as follows for at least 20
years:
(1) Require Microsoft to LICENSE AT NO COST to the licensee ALL
CODE necessary (a) to allow all other operating systems to run 32-
bit (and eventually higher level) programs written for Windows and
every other operating system developed by Microsoft, and (b) to
allow other developers' software to run as effectively under Windows
and such other operating systems as Microsoft's own programs. That
code should be made available to developers of operating system
enhancements and plugins as well as the operating system developers
themselves and should be made available as soon as it is being
incorporated into any Microsoft product. The only limitation on such
a requirement should be that the licensee be a U.S. citizen or
company.
(2) Prohibit Microsoft from any arrangement by which its
software would be included in new computers. Microsoft's past use of
its monopoly power and its use of tying agreements and other illegal
arrangements to discourage computer manufacturers from offering non-
Microsoft operating systems and other software on their computers
has seriously harmed competition, and those still willing to compete
need many years without Microsoft's predatory conduct to catch up.
(3) Prohibit Microsoft from any alterations, modifications or
additions to Java and other other open software except those
approved and adopted by the consortiums developing the open software
for everyone's use. Microsoft has used its monopoly power to write
its own version of Java, which was offered by Sun as open software.
There are presently sites that my version of Netscape cannot access
because they use a Microsoft version of Java. Java developers have
felt the stinging impact of Microsoft's illegal behavior. Its
consequences in the future may be even more severe if the federal
government's weak legal precedent is established.
With the order components set forth above, what Microsoft does
with Explorer would be irrelevant since other operating systems
could include other web browsers, yet all operating systems could
run Windows (and other Microsoft operating system) programs, which
has become the standard for most software being developed today
because of Microsoft's past illegal conduct. Imposing the
restrictions for a minimum of 20 years would allow other operating
systems to strengthen and grow in usage to the point where software
program developers would find it profitable to produce native
versions of their software for such systems. The history of OS/2
shows that this would work:
While Windows was a 16-bit system and its 16-bit code was
included in OS/2, sales and use of OS/2 grew, and native
applications were being developed. But when Windows became a 32-bit
program and Microsoft's 32-bit Windows code was not included in OS/
2, OS/2's market position and its growing acceptance were seriously
hurt. That was exacerbated by Microsoft's illegal tying and other
agreements that kept manufacturers from including OS/2 on their new
computers. While OS/2 has remained alive despite Microsoft's illegal
conduct (because of OS/2's superiority as an operating system over
everything Microsoft has produced thus far) it cannot return to
marketing success without the ability to run applications that most
users want. In fact, IBM has been forced to scale back further work
on OS/2, and it has almost given up on it because of Microsoft's
pressure on it and the difficulty of dealing with Microsoft's
illegal use of its monopoly power. OS/2 could return to effective
competition with licenses of Microsoft's operating system code, at
no cost to IBM and/or those who might want to enhance the system if
IBM chooses not to do it. Finally, I understand that Microsoft has
violated with impunity consent decrees of the past. It should be
ordered to pay a substantial fine. It should also be ordered to pay
all costs of monitoring its compliance in the future. This should
continue for at least 20 years.
IBM was severely punished over 20 years ago for its antitrust
behavior. It then managed to behave in a responsible manner and has
continued to do so. There is no reason why Microsoft should not be
similarly punished now, so that it and Bill Gates can learn to
behave as responsible corporate citizens. The economic consequences
to Microsoft, however severe, would be entirely appropriate to its
outrageous and illegal conduct. And I have no doubt that it could
survive as a healthy company.
[J:] David Eckman
Law Offices of David W. Eckman
[email protected]
http://www.eckman-law.com
3730 Kirby Dr., Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77098-3927
713-661-2065
MTC-00008209
From: Frank Angrisano
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 24998]]
Date: 1/3/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
As a Microsoft product user I want the Justice Department to
accept the agreement that has been mutually agreed upon. The hold
out states should be ignored, as they seem to have an ulterior
motive for not agreeing with the present settlement. As a product
user I have never felt that Microsoft has taken advantage of me or
that I have paid an excessive price for any of their products.
Sincerely,
Frank Angrisano
78 Rancho Del Sol
Camino, CA. 95709
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00008210
From: H.Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I feel that the settlement process should go forward with haste.
The public and Microsoft have paid a huge price to get to this point
and to continue to waste taxpayer dollars is wrong. Microsoft has
been an innovator in the tech industry for a long time and they
should have the opportunity to continue to do so for the good of the
country and its consumers. Please see that this reaches a conclusion
soon
Sincerely,
Herbert A Barr
309 Willow Drive
Enterprise, Alabama 36330
MTC-00008211
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this matter. We do not need any more litigation.
This does NOT serve the public purpose of the anti-trust act.
Microsoft has been punished enough.......probably more than it
should.
Irene M. LaBonne
MTC-00008212
From: Narendra Parekh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am IN FAVOR of the settlement that DOJ and states have reached
on Microsoft issue.
Thanks!
- Narendra Parekh
- Amishi Parekh
- Saheli Parekh
Address: 5341 FORTE LANE, CONCORD, CA 94521
MTC-00008213
From: ford658
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justices,
Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory,
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft
earned its position in the free-market. I like all consumers vote
with my pocketbook. Since Microsoft is the champion in innovation,
products, and business acumen, I buy their products. I also avoid
the products of those who seek the power of the government to
compete.
The problem is not with Microsoft, it is with the anti-trust
law--it should be rescinded.
Frederick Ford
MTC-00008214
From: avawter1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Public Comment Attorneys
Department of Justice
As a member of the public using products in the field covered by
the recent & lengthy litigation of this case, I urge you to finalize
the settlement reached last year. It was evident that much hard work
and ``give'' took place on both sides of the dispute and this is
appreciated. It was also evident that this anti-trust case had a
severe impact on the technological economy and on product innovation
that affects consumers. Please, let's lift this burden with a swift
conclusion to the matter in accord with the terms of the settlement.
Antoinette W. Vawter
Pismo Beach, CA
MTC-00008215
From: tom dobbin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to accept
the settlement that is now before the courts. It seems to me that we
as taxpayers and shareholders have suffered enough at the hands of
those who want to return to the protection of the ``buggy whip''
industry. The antagonists in the Microsoft case are woefully out of
touch with reality. In this age of technological advances which look
more like a tidal wave, anyone who tries to hold to the status quo
of yesteryear is dreaming. For the benefit of us all, let the
proposed settlement go forward as written.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Dobbin
422 Island View So.
Mattawa, WA 99349
MTC-00008216
From: Debbie Purdie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is high time the government (Feds and State) and
Microsoft put an end to this case. We have learned over the years
that when both sides are not happy with it, then it is probably as
good a deal as one could ask for. We hear the complaints from both
sides which tells us it really is time to put this thing to bed. We
strongly urge the Justice Department to accept the settlement!!!!!!
I have informed my Senator that I am not in favor of anymore
political posturing via hearings, and that the dissenting states
Attorney's General should stop the political barking (which is just
to appease the big software and Internet companies that want to
destroy their competitors). Competition is good for the computer
industry and this settlement seems to assure fair and honest
competition will take place.
Respectfully,
Scott and Debbie Purdie
PS We are stockholders of BOTH AOL and Microsoft and actually
have a greater stake in AOL than Microsoft. We think AOL's lobbying
against this settlement is little more than sour grapes (and we have
communicated with them our feelings as expressed above).
--- Debbie Purdie
--- [email protected]
MTC-00008217
From: Kurt Wiseman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that settlement in the DOJ case against Microsoft is
in the best interest of the U.S. and the American people.
Sincerely,
Kurt Wiseman
MTC-00008218
From: jhministry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the dept of Justice has done enough to Microsoft.
It has made its case and levied its verdict.
It is time to move on. And allowing the other companies to
continue to drag Microsoft down after your verdict has been given is
a shame. Every business would love the opportunity to squash its
competition to fill its own pocket and that is what you are allowing
the other 9 states to do lead by the Microsoft competitors. When
will it stop???????????????
Rev Johnie Hinson
109 Flinton Dr
Hampton, VA 23666
MTC-00008219
From: Jack (038) Dot O'Hara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Our Comment on the subject ,as provided by the Tunney Act, is
that the settlement is the best available result in a case that
should never have been prosecuted by the U. S. DoJ or the Attorney
Generals of the States involved, because there has been no damage to
the purchasers or to the users of computers that were sold with
Microsoft software installed. On the contrary, the public, the
computer manufacturers and the economy of the nation were, and
continue to be, greatly benefited by Microsoft products and
marketing practices.
We have studied the bases advanced by the USDoJ and the States
as justification for their prosecution and have found them to be
wholly without merit. On the contrary, our study has convinced us
that the prosecution was politically motivated and has resulted in a
gross injustice to Microsoft and has done irreparable damage to the
credibility and the
[[Page 24999]]
reputation for trustworthiness of the Attorney Generals of the US
and of the States concerned and of the Federal Judiciary.
Respectfully submitted
John A. O'Hara, Jr. and Dorothy M. O'Hara
81 Highpoint Lane
Chelan WA 98816
MTC-00008220
From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I respectfully submit these comments and observations. I am a
technologist who has been in this industry since 1985. I currently
work for a brand building corporation that uses both Windows and
Macintosh systems. In a prior career I worked for Ameritech (now
SBC) for 30 years, five of which were in the IT organization.
I am writing this letter because I strongly believe the proposed
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft fails to
achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: halting the illegal
conduct, promoting competition in this industry, and depriving
Microsoft of its illegal gains. It appears that Microsoft has again
accomplished its objectives and will continue now on its campaign of
total dominance of anything it chooses. I fail to understand why our
US Justice representatives, would once again offer a simple slap on
the wrist to a company that has ignored a similar punishment in the
past. Clearly, this approach has not and will not work. Microsoft
has so many ways to interpret this proposed agreement that it is a
total waste of paper. Were they not convicted of being an illegal
monopoly? Did they not destroy competition in as many ruthless and
illegal ways as they desired? Will this agreement, increase
competition? Is this agreement good for our future? I believe, along
with many others, that the answer to all these questions is a
resounding NO.
I strongly encourage you to persist in your efforts to
vigorously bring this case to justice. A justice that will encourage
competition and send a clear message to Microsoft and any others who
operate outside the law. Microsoft's aggressive and illegal behavior
should be curbed once and for all. I believe it is harmful to our
future IT economy to allow this evil doer to continue in its illegal
pursuits.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Felbab
Technologist,
Hanson, Dodge Design
[email protected]
MTC-00008221
From: Catherine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think it is high time this come to an end. Dragging this
(ridiculous) lawsuit on any further is helping no one. I wish I were
more eloquent-- but I just want to be heard that some of us are sick
and tired of this and ready for it to come to an end. Personally, I
think it should never have happened in the first place.
Catherine North
Federal Way, WA
MTC-00008222
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer of Microsoft products, and one who was supposed to
have been ``damaged'' by the business practices of Microsoft,
alleged by their competitors, I must tell you that this action has
dragged on for much too long. It seems to me that the Settlement
reached and agreed to by all parties should be the end of it. The
economy cannot stand any more of the never-ending litigation which
has been the real cause of damage to me as a consumer and
stockholder of Microsoft.
Sandra L. Pratt
Carmel, CA
MTC-00008223
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,Michael.McLagan@ Linux.Org@ inetgw, joh...
Date: 1/3/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Government Anti Trust litigation has achieved 2 things to date.
1) Bringing the Linux and Open Source communities (as the only
credible competition that Microsoft faces) to the attention of
Venture capitalists, the stock market, etc too soon, resulting in
the destruction of many good companies who were not ready for the
ruinous competition from the rise of companies that had no business
being in business... the ones that survived will be stronger, and
new ones will spring up.. but that does not set aside that fact that
this entire industry was set back a several years by capitalist
greed out of control. From the very beginning I'd prefer that this
case against Microsoft had never happened.... eventually the bully
gets turned on by everyone else. The effectiveness and Return on
Investment of Open Source technologies are so stunning that
Microsoft has been looking for an effective way to battle it,
discredit it, whatever works and this brings about the second point
2) Assuring Microsoft that they can beat anyone, and don't need
to fear even the government, so now they are free to continue as
they always have, with impunity. The many blatant lies they told in
court make this clear. Why isn't this a good thing? Because it
deprives real innovators of the fruits of their innovations, and as
a result removes the incentive to people to keep our nation in the
lead technologically. It also reinforces many people's worship of
the ends despite the means being inappropriate, and this undercuts
our entire society. Winning is not everything, it is just part of
life. But isn't Microsoft an innovator? A marketing truism is that
if you say something often enough and loud enough people will
believe it. And people don't care enough to find the truth. For any
innovation that Microsoft has made, it can also be shown who they
busted in the chops to take it away from them, generally with strong
arm tactics, and no thought of ethics. This goes all the way back to
their original product, Microsoft Basic. They've left many a good
company and organization shattered in their destructive wake. People
break laws, not companies... and I think they should face penalties
appropriate to their situations. That certainly has not happened in
this case. The public interest is not served by encouraging mafia
like tactics in the name of economic recovery, the very greed and
business tactics that lead to the recession in the first place.
The next Einstein will probably be a kid from a third world
country that had access to a cheap castoff PC, the source code for
Linux, and the internet. With clubs formed by these kids, that
country, and other countries that actually allow and encourage
continued innovation, will then have a new technological revolution.
It can only happen outside the sphere of Microsoft's control. Linux
is only the beginning.. and companies that spring up around new
technologies need the opportunity to succeed.
Microsoft has 2 strengths, and they have been there from the
beginning. 1) Convincing sales, marketing & PR, and 2) a willingness
to be totally ruthless and as unethical as they have to be to get
what they want the way they want it. And then claim credit for it.
When have you seen someone who fights clean in the schoolyard
beaten a dirty fighter? Only if they are much, much better trained,
especially if smaller. Aren't trust, ethics and morals the fabric of
our society, especially assumptions behind our legal system? So
wouldn't the biggest winners be those actually able to get around
the rules, above the law so to speak?
If ethics don't stand then our society falls into anarchy. How
often have you heard ``It's not personal, It's business'' used as a
justification? But don't people who act this way deprive themselves
and their organizations of future benefits that might be gained from
those whom they are cheating? Isn't this counter productive?
Most people won't believe this, but Microsoft not only has NOT
invented the computer industry and the internet, but rather they
hijacked it, and in the process actually slowed it down... and the
slowdown continues. Now we are paying the price of what they have
sown. As The founders of our great country knew, freedom requires
responsibility, and when we abdicate responsibility in great enough
numbers, we will also lose our freedom in time.
Microsoft is about making money, selling whatever they can push,
always creating a new need, a new desire... remind you of anything?
How about the drug pusher at the schoolyard? Ever wonder why
computer people are called ``users''? Think of it, an entire economy
held hostage by one company and what Microsoft chooses to do or not
do. Thinking that daily or hourly reboots are the way computers
``are'', and putting up with the unnecessary loss of productivity,
the continual and often unneeded upgrades. Microsoft is not
concerned beyond getting your money, and what they sell you being
just ``good enough'' that they get to keep it that money. What is
more, as Microsoft slowly takes over the internet, and everyone's
computers, as they get everyone's data on their servers at MSN, or
have access to it
[[Page 25000]]
through hidden back doors concealed in proprietary source code on
your system. These hidden doors could only be found by legions of
programmers looking at the source. What do you mean that Microsoft
wouldn't do this? Check your history, they have already been caught
doing exactly this at least twice. What is next for this
organization? Where will they stop? When will it get to the point
that even the US government will not be able to face down this
entity already capable of buying Nukes should they choose to do so?
There is a word in Russian ``Pravda'', and it is usually
translated to english as ``truth'', but it in fact means not
``truth'', but rather ``what best serves the state''. Read Robert
Heinlein's extensive essay on the subject ... This is how Microsoft
defines truth as used in their various articles and whitepapers, not
to mention what they say in their business dealings and the
courtroom. This is an opponent the like of which the world has
rarely seen, and never with as much terrible power and influence as
is within their grasp within a very short time to come if the
government does not act appropriately towards them now that the
battle has been engaged. When will we all wake up?
Attached to this message is an earlier message I wrote regarding
what I consider to be equitable remedies, and also a follow up
message by Jon ``maddog'' Hall, Executive Director of Linux
International, which has since been published.
Mark Bolzern
[email protected]
http://www.Bolzern.Org Phone: 303-690-2806 Fax: 303-693-6064
MTC-00008224
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been told that this is where opinions on the Microsoft
settlement should be sent. Please correct me is I am misteaken.
As I understand the current state of the Microsoft (MS)
antitrust case, MS has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly
position. The proposed settlement is that MS will be subject to
government oversight for 5 to 7 years. As a 42 year old MIS veteran
with Math and Computer Science degrees and over 15 years experience
designing and managing computer systems for companies with up to
1,500 users I would like to offer a simple vision of what
``conduct'' the government should insist that MS follow.
MS has used its dominance of their Operating Systems (OS) to
achieve dominance of the Applications that run on top of the OS. The
object of the government oversight should be to break MS's lock on
the link between the OS and the Applications. The only way to do
this is to FORCE MS to publish the documented (and undocumented)
Application Program Interfaces (APIs) in the OS necessary to load
and run MS Windows Applications. MS will scream bloody murder, and
try to spin this as un-American, but running an abusive monopoly is
un-American too. Publishing ALL of the necessary APIs should enable
other OS vendors to modify their OSs so that they can run industry
standard Windows Applications (including Microsoft Office). I have
emulated other OSs like Windows on top of OSs like Macintosh and
UNIX. so I have seen it work to varying degrees. Unfortunately these
emulated MS OSs have been problematic because they had to be reverse
engineered without MS's support. Not only doesn't MS support OS
emulation, they have been proven in court to sabotage these efforts
(DRDOS). If the government FORCED MS to cooperate then the other OSs
could be enhanced to run MS programs natively.
Compliance would be EASY to monitor. If MS were forced to
release their OS APIs, then I predict a stampede in the LINUX world
(and probably the UNIX and Mac world) to support the APIs in order
to run native Windows Applications. The LINUX community already has
a global and public means of development and review for projects,
and I am sure that a Windows port would become a high priority
multi-year project. LINUX should be used to verify compliance
because it is the ONLY transparent OS allowing anybody in the world
to view the source code of the OS. If MS complies then the LINUX
world will be able to make a workable clone of the MS OS. This OS
clone would run on top of LINUX and be able to run all MS
Applications. If MS ``forgets'' to mention some of the APIs, the
LINUX crowd with its global review system will identify what is
missing. If a clone MS OS can be built and it runs MS Applications,
then MS compliance will have been achieved. Microsoft Excel, Word,
Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Power Point and any other MS
Applications that the US government uses could be the applications
used to verify compliance.
Even though MS would cry bloody murder, they shouldn't worry
unless they are afraid that their OS is so weak that a LINUX based
clone could outperform the MS OS. Either way the consumer benefits.
If the MS OS is superior, then the consumer has two choices: buy the
MS OS or use the slower but free LINUX clone. If the free LINUX
version of the MS OS ends up being superior then the consumer is
allowed to use a higher quality lower priced (free) product. Either
way the MS monopoly on the OS and the abuses that have resulted from
the monopoly will be fixed.
By eliminating MS's monopoly on the OS, I predict a new golden
age in software development. There should be NO time limit on the
publication of the APIs, as long as MS makes OSs they should be
forced to publish the APIs.
Skip Steuart
Steuart Investment Company
Chevy Chase, Maryland
phone:301/951-2744
MTC-00008225
From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:38pm
Subject: Settlement
The Microsoft settlement proposed by the JUstice Dept is a gfair
and just dicision for all parties Emewrson H graham
MTC-00008226
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:40pm
Subject: MS Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I really wish our US Government would accept decisions as they
stand instead of dragging suits out years and years and millions and
millions of dollars being wasted. A decision was
reached............let's get on with it! The Federal Government and
9 states agreed. Let Microsoft ``pay'' its reduced liability and
let's get on with life! Having been a senior officer in a publically
traded company for 20 years, I personally know that a company can't
plan anything until it truly knows where it stands. Think of the
inefficiencies not to mention the cost! When is our legal system
going to get into the 21st Century and quit practicing ``Guilty
until proven innocent''!!!!!!!!
Bob Burress.
MTC-00008227
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, 1/3/02
Thank you for the e-mail and providing me the info.
I believe we live in the ``Free Enterprise Systems''. My vote is
for the Microsoft Executive, Bill Gate. I believe that the court
should support Bill Gate and let him do the job to run the
technology in our country.
Ali
MTC-00008228
From: Tom Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To: DOJ
The current ruling is in the best interest of the industry,
consumer and our countries economy.
The on going objections originate from competitors who want the
government to cripple Microsoft, there by giving them an unfair
advantage over Microsoft. Please throw out the petitions filled
against Microsoft.
Tom Lane
MTC-00008229
From: David Freitag
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The economy has suffered terribly from the overzealous pursuit
of punitive damages against Microsoft which one of the main
foundations of the USA economy. Please expedite the current
agreement and do not allow expansion of the suit as sought by the
states and competitors of Microsoft. The sooner this litigation is
completed, the better.
This e-mail and attachments, if any, may contain confidential
and/or proprietary information. Please be advised that the
unauthorized use or disclosure of the information is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this
message and attachments. Thank you.
[[Page 25001]]
MTC-00008230
From: Westover, Michael (US-LIHI)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I just wanted to let you know that I believe the proposed
Microsoft Settlement is fair and it's time to stop all of the
Microsoft bashing.
Michael D. Westover
Liberty International, e-Commerce
[email protected]
(617) 574-5765
CC:'attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us'
MTC-00008231
From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The microsoft settlement as submitted by the Justice Dept is
fair and equitable for all Parties involved.
Submitted by Emerson H. Graham
MTC-00008232
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Leave Microsoft and Bill Gates alone. Their success is earned.
Allow this settlement to take place.
MTC-00008233
From: Bob LeVitus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar
settlement with Microsoft.
As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very much in
favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to their
behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real benefit to
them. The resolution including the dissemination of their software
and compatible hardware, training to use their products, and loads
of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face of the
very point of the trial.
They have been declared a monopoly for illegal tactics that were
specifically meant to increase their market share, for bundling
products for free to get market share, and for illegally blocking
other's products to gain market share, and now, a good portion of
the settlement specifically increases their market share of both the
OS and their bundled products.
I believe this settlement should be declined. It does nothing to
address their behavior and will not change it in the future,
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
Please don't let them get away with it.
Regards,
Bob
Bob LeVitus
Writer and raconteur
[email protected]
http://www.boblevitus.com
MTC-00008234
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit Settlement
To whom it my concern:
I am in complete support of the current settlement between
Microsoft & the DOJ. I think to continue to pursue Microsoft and
seek additional penalties will in the long term damage the American
Computer Industry.
MTC-00008235
From: Jerry Blackwill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want to support the justice department in the terms of the
Microsoft settlement. By taking this action, the justice department
has put the US on a better economic footing.
Jerry Blackwill
MTC-00008236
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please conclude your current agreement with Microsoft and ignore
their competitors
Thank You
Frank P.
Cyrill Jr.
MTC-00008237
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I hope that the government soon stops its harrassment of
Microsoft. I realize that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on
operating systems for the personal computers, but that seems to be a
more reasonable approach than having to deal with multiple operating
systems. If software developers had to write software for multiple
operating systems, everything would become more complex and more
expensive.
Sincerely yours,
Richard W. Burg
MTC-00008238
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Complete the Microsoft settlement NOW! It is time we put this
matter behind us and allow Microsoft an opportunity to get back to
running its business. Why should our own government keep trying to
undermine this great American company? Leave Microsoft alone.
M. Mills
1/03/02
MTC-00008239
From: tonymi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement proposed by the DOJ is fair and
adequate, and I would like to see it accepted by the court. I
believe the demands of the nine holdout states, including my own
home state of Kansas, have greatly exceeded the scope of any
remedies needed. As I understand it, antitrust settlements aren't
supposed to rob the plaintiff of intellectual property, and two of
the terms proposed by the holdouts do just that, namely the
requirements that Microsoft provide source code for Internet
Explorer and license Office for other operating systems.
I also object to the request that Microsoft provide a stripped-
down version of Windows. I'm a retired software engineer with 30
years of experience, and I know this idea is just impractical.
Features that the holdouts want removed work much more effectively
if they are integrated into the operating system, not slapped on as
an afterthought. It's analogous to air conditioning on an
automobile; factory air always works better than an add-on unit.
Smart customers would avoid the product, and customers who did buy
it would regret it, so what's the point of forcing Microsoft to
produce it? It also runs counter to industry trends; every modern
operating system now includes these added features, and customers
expect them. If Microsoft is burdened with this requirement, they
should be allowed to affix a prominent label saying ``This product
was designed for you by the Attorneys General of Kansas, California,
etc. ... Please forward all complaints to them.''
I believe that the AGs of the holdout states only want to
prolong the case for political reasons (to placate Microsoft's
rivals) or for greed, hoping to somehow milk a windfall from
Microsoft. I don't think they are the least bit interested in
justice, only in benefiting themselves. Prolonging the case is
holding back the high-tech industry, and therefore the entire
economy. I request the court to accept the settlement as a fair one,
move on, and help our country recuperate.
Thank you,
Tony Miller
316 Lawrence Avenue
Lawrence, KS 66049
785/331-4592
[email protected]
MTC-00008240
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:02pm
Subject: (no subject)
SETTLE
MTC-00008241
From: Joseph F. Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my dismay at the settlement concerning
Microsoft Corporation. Because of Microsoft's tactics in forcing
their products (Windows OS and Microsoft Internet Explorer,
especially) and forcing out competition, we have to deal the
problems that come with not having alternatives to their systems. I
work at the University of Utah and deal with a lot of computer
users. Because of the monopolistic actions of Microsoft,
alternatives to their email systems are not common among our users.
Microsoft Outlook, Windows OS and Internet Explorer form together a
serious security threat that has caused much expense to our support
systems. Because of their overwhelming
[[Page 25002]]
market, they are slow to respond to the problems they cause and slow
to address quality issues in their products. People have grown to
accept what they provide, regardless of inferior quality, security
problems or even cost.
I feel that the current settlement has let Microsoft off the
hook and allows them to conduct business as usual. This should not
be the case. Please seriously consider the states' petitions against
Microsoft.
Thank you for your consideration,
Joseph F. Buchanan
(801) 566-1083
[email protected]
Joseph F. Buchanan--
Internet: [email protected]
University of Utah
http://www.cc.utah.edu/joseph/
TACC--Marriott Library--295 S. 1500 East
--(really ML2751C)
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860
-- (801) 581-8814
X-Pgp-Url: http://www.cc.utah.edu/joseph/pgpkey
MTC-00008242
From: Aqualyst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the DOJ:
Although I may disagree with some of the ways in which the
Microsoft Corporation conducts its business strategy, Microsoft is
no more harmful to me than the US Post Office, the local cable TV
company, or any other of a myriad of companies that, unlike
Microsoft, are monopolies in the true sense of the word.
These companies are granted monopolies by government force,
against which I have no recourse except to do without. Conversely,
regarding Microsoft products, I can always cast my vote against them
by purchasing other products. I can think of no area in which
Microsoft actually holds a true monopoly; neither in operating
systems nor in any other software currently in the marketplace. I
can use an open-source operating system such as Linux on my PC, or I
can purchase a computer from Apple that requires me to adjust to,
and buy software compatible with, their proprietary operating
system. I can use Netscape, and often do, to browse the Internet
from my PC with Windows installed.
I can purchase excellent word processing software from Corel,
instead of using Microsoft Word. I can even purchase a complete,
integrated Office Suite without spending one cent on Microsoft
products. The list goes on and on.
Here's what I can't do...
I can't subscribe to a competitive cable TV provider, who may
offer better service at a lower price... I must use the one granted
a monopoly in my neighborhood. I can't use a telephone company that
may offer more value and trouble-free service in my neighborhood...I
must use the government-granted monopoly in my calling area. I can't
change my provider for electrical service... I must use the power
company with a government-enforced monopoly in my area.
I'm sure you get my point here. The Department of Justice (if
you're truly seeking justice) should be striving to eliminate all of
the government-enforced monopolies in this country that do untold
damage to the economy. If you question the damage that government
intervention in the marketplace can cause, I would refer you to the
situation in California regarding power generation. Microsoft has
earned its market position. It deserves to hold its dominance over
the competition because it continues to provide me with ever-
improving software and hardware, which enriches my life and makes me
individually more productive. The best thing the DOJ could do would
be to repeal the Sherman Antitrust Act and get out of the
marketplace. The term ``laissez faire'' is not just a cute phrase.
It is a caveat, and a marketplace axiom, that the DOJ, and the rest
of the government, should observe. There is not now, nor has there
ever been, a justification for government manipulation of business.
The marketplace will ultimately take care of itself through the
profit motive. The Sherman Act, itself, is an atrocity which was
enacted to resolve a situation caused by government intervention.
One doesn't cure an illness by administering more of the poison
which caused it.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Mehan 1151 Carrollton Ave. Metairie, LA 70005
MTC-00008243
From: Joan Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am all for the comprehensive agreement that the Federal
Goverment and nine states reached with Microsoft. Enough is enough.
Sincerely,
Joan T. Clarke Fairview N. C. 28730
MTC-00008244
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: the Tunney Act
For the sake of the public at large please be assured that this
settlement is in the public interest and to continue more litigation
against Microsoft will only hurt the American economy and benefit a
few special interests. Please do NOT continue more litigation
against Microsoft and continue to hurt the economy.
The attack on Microsoft has already done damage to the stock
market. Just go back to when it emerged during the last
administration and see the effect on the market every time a new
announcement came out about punishing Microsoft. Its not Microsoft
that gets punished its the American Public and Freedom that suffers.
George Korey
060 Marcus Ct
Pinole CA 94564
MTC-00008245
From: Peter Kain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Please stop wasting taxpayers money litigating against
Microsoft. It is an inefficient use of the taxpayers money. I buy
and use many of the products they sell and do so willingly. Why?
They are great products. They are reliable. Most importantly, they
allow me to communicate with others who also use Microsoft products.
Enough is enough. Let's move on. There is a time and place for
pursuing justice, and that time has passed. The horse was dead a
long time ago.
Let's not beat it any more.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Kain
Peter Kain Lighting Accessories Inc.
[email protected]
MTC-00008246
From: Bob Beaudoin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Utah Attorney General is pursuing harsher punishment for
Microsoft along with 8 other states (California, Connecticut,
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and West Virginia).
The Attorney Generals' of these states are correct in pursuing
Harsher penalities. The DOJ settlement is not a deterent on what
Microsoft has done to many other companies. The DOJ needs to support
the case of these states against Microsoft.
Bob Beaudoin
5435 Riley Lane
Murray, UT 84107
Bob Beaudoin
Computer Support
Plant Operations
University of Utah
801 585-5919
MTC-00008247
From: Patrick McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microssoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern--
I would like to urge the DOJ to back off Microsoft and allow
this settlement to go forward.
Very truly yours,
Al Maiolo President
Al J. Maiolo
President
Aero Hardware & Parts Company, Inc.
130 Business Park Dr.
Armonk, NY 10504
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: (914) 273-8550
Phone: (914) 273-8612
MTC-00008248
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:12pm
Subject: (no subject)
I THINK AS THE NEW YEAR IS HERE, WE SHOULD ALL TRY AND GET BACK
TO OUR NORMAL LIFE STYLE. I THINK MICROSOFT AND THE SETTLEMENT IS
VERY FAIR. I DON'T THINK THE OTHER STATES ARE BEING FAIR WITH
MICROSOFT OR THE ECONOMY. MICROSOFT WILL HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY,
IF THE OTHER STATES WILL GET OFF OF THEIR BACK.
THANK YOU
[[Page 25003]]
BERTIE F. SMITH
243 CR. 2446
SALTILLO, MS 38866
MTC-00008249
From: Henry G Absher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 3, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you in support of the recent settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft. After three long years of court
battles and round-the-clock negotiations, a fair and reasonable
settlement was reached, and then we find out that there are some who
feel it needs further examination. What about spending our dollars
and time on examining our current economic status or our nation's
security? These might be more pressing issues at the moment.
This settlement was not only well thought out, but was
formulated with all parties in mind. Not only did Microsoft give up
a great deal to allow the competitive market to flourish, but also
they agreed to allow these companies to sue them if, in fact, they
weren't complying. The settlement addresses everything from pricing
agreements to code disclosure, and this should be considered a real
coup for competitors. Microsoft has bowed down to dozens of demands,
and now we need to let the technology industry get back to business.
The American economy could use some boosting at the moment, and
holding up the IT sector and their competitive growth can only harm
things. I urge you to support this settlement by helping to see that
it no longer gets challenged from those in the federal government
who would compromise it. Thank you for your time and effort on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Henry Absher
MTC-00008250
From: alfred mizner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've worked in the technology industry for over 10 years and I
have been mystified by the governments apparent attempt(through
obvious competitor funding) destroy Microsoft. It is because of
their leadership and support for building a common PC platform that
we are not still working on disparate and disjoint systems and
software platforms. My comment on the settlement is that it goes
well beyond what I think is necessary or appropriate. Therefore I
would request that this be the end of this odyssey and start putting
money and focus in a more appropriate place.
Regards
Al
MTC-00008251
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:14pm
Subject: Settlement
Please get off Bill's back.!!!!!!!!!! All he and Mrs. Gates do
is good for the people and kids. Not to mention what he has done for
the Kids. We are in a lot of bad times now , and mostly in Seattle.
Thank You
Wes Boyd.
MTC-00008252
From: Sumit Pal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi
The settlement is certainly a positive one for the industry and
the American people at large.
Cheers,
Sumit
MTC-00008253
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it's time to move on and get off Microsoft's back. This
market is moving too rapidly for anyone to maintain an edge too
long.
Matt Ryan, CLU
9080 Illahee Rd NE
Bremerton, WA 98311
MTC-00008254
From: Mitch Millar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
This case has been going on too long and has especially added
detrimentally to all Technology stock losses in the last two years.
Microsoft is highly competitive, all successful companies are.
If they are not breaking the law, get over it!!
Special interest factions are trying to skim the cream off of
Microsoft's success because they cannot or are unwilling to compete.
Leave Microsoft alone!!
The technology Microsoft provides make the market for the rest
of us out there in the software world.
Mitch
[email protected]
MTC-00008255
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a public school teacher in Wisconsin and am writing on
behalf of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. I support
the goals that are set forth in this settlement to establish an
independent foundation comprised of educators to distribute
technology funds, computers and software to the nation's poorest
schools.
As a public school teacher, I am made aware of the importance of
technology on a daily basis. I am also well aware of the huge
technology gap that exists between wealthy and poor communities.
This settlement would make a big difference in Wisconsin in that we
are below the national average when it comes to computer
availability for students. These funds could also help provide
teachers with sufficient technology training, another area in which
we are behind in Wisconsin.
Technology can be a powerful teaching tool and if we are going
to fully prepare today's students for tomorrow's world, we have to
stay current and we have to make technology available to everyone.
In my school district we are just beginning to see the impact that
technology can have. We recently passed a referendum that enabled
the district to purchase one computer per teacher, and is slowly
striving to have one computer for every 6 students. While that still
is sorely behind what we see in the business world, it has already
made a big difference. A settlement such as this could assist other
districts, as well as my own, in obtaining the technology necessary
for education in the 21st century.
Thank you for your consideration,
Cathy Atkinson
Social Studies Teacher
Waukesha, WI.
MTC-00008256
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it may concern,
I believe that the US Government would find it's self better
occupied paying more attention to the terrorist problem, the
airplane security problem than bothering with Microsoft. This
company only does good, helps our nations civilian and military,
with the latest in technology and contributes computers to the
nations libraries, provides jobs and pays its taxes to support the
Government.
G. C. TRENTANOVE
MTC-00008257
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
PLEASE, LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I DUANE A. DAVIS AGREE TO THE
SETTELMENT, WE NEED MORE JOBS, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS WHERE THE TRIAL
LAWYERS RAKE IN ALL THE MONEY
THANKS
[email protected]
MTC-00008258
From: Joseph F. Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (added my address)
(This is the same message sent before, but I forgot to add my
mailing address) I would like to express my dismay at the settlement
concerning Microsoft Corporation. Because of Microsoft's tactics in
forcing their products (Windows OS and Microsoft Internet Explorer,
especially) and forcing out competition, we have to deal the
problems that come with not having alternatives to their systems. I
work at the University of Utah and deal with a lot of computer
users. Because of the monopolistic actions of Microsoft,
alternatives to their email systems are not common among our users.
Microsoft
[[Page 25004]]
Outlook, Windows OS and Internet Explorer form together a serious
security threat that has caused much expense to our support systems.
Because of their overwhelming market, they are slow to respond to
the problems they cause and slow to address quality issues in their
products. People have grown to accept what they provide, regardless
of inferior quality, security problems or even cost.
I feel that the current settlement has let Microsoft off the
hook and allows them to conduct business as usual. This should not
be the case. Please seriously consider the states' petitions against
Microsoft.
Thank you for your consideration,
Joseph F. Buchanan
7472 Silver Circle
West Jordan, UT 84084-3946
(801) 566-1083
[email protected]
Joseph F. Buchanan
--Internet: [email protected]
University of Utah
--http://www.cc.utah.edu/~joseph/
TACC--Marriott Library--295 S. 1500 East
--(really ML2751C)
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860
--(801) 581-8814
X-Pgp-Url: http://www.cc.utah.edu/~joseph/pgpkey
MTC-00008259
From: Konrad M.Kempfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement:
This is to express my disapproval of prolonged litigation in the
Microsoft case. The settlement reached is fair and should be
accepted.
It is definitely not in the interest of the public or the US
economy to continue court proceedings.
Respectfully
Konrad M.Kempfe, MD
715 Bogar Drive
Selinsgrove, PA 17870
MTC-00008260
From: Kevin McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is imperative that any settlement should be in the
form of CASH only It should NOT be in the form of additional gifts
or sales of Microsoft product to schools and others.
I would like to see this case brought to a swift conclusion, but
not at the expense of other firms marketing competing products.
Kevin McDaniel
MTC-00008261
From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:27pm
Subject: My 2 cents
This case against Microsoft has been poorly executed by the
government, companies and handful of states taking part. It is also
quite hypocritical of those companies because they simply do not
have the products to available to replace the Microsoft software. I
could see their point if they actually had something to sell me but
they don't. Have you ever tried writing a letter, doing a
spreadsheet, made a greeting card, edited a photograph on a UNIX
machine? I didn't think so. All these companies have a perfect right
to manufacture competing products, but they dont, even for their own
die hard users.
In addition I as a consumer feel that the deal Microsoft gives
me is a tremendous value. Where else can I get a state of the art
operating system, with many applications for under $200? There is no
case here.
Microsoft software has done more for our economy, military
strength, and business productivity than any single company in
history.
Let them keep it up. Or invite them to leave the US and become a
corporation of lets say, India. I know the country of India would
welcome them with open arms, unlike our own government which scorns
them.
MTC-00008262
From: William J. Crittenden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft
There are basically three types of people who have opinions on
the U.S. v. Microsoft case:
(1) People who have no idea what the law says or what Microsoft
has actually done. (These people should be ignored)
(2) People who have some vested interest in supporting Microsoft
or some ideological axe to grind such that they support Microsoft
for reasons that have nothing to do with the case, Microsoft's
obvious and unrepentant guilt, or appropriate remedies.
(3) (Myself included) People who are absolutely outraged by
Microsoft's pattern of deliberate illegal conduct and its total
disregard for the law. READ THE DAMN COURT OF APPEALS OPINION!!! IT
SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!! Bill Gates is a crook and a liar, and he has
created, illegally maintained and repeatedly abused a monopoly in
computer operating systems. The harm to consumers is staggering.
Windows is an overpriced and unreliable pile of crap, but most
people have no real choice (Apple is an expensive alternative, and
there are no other widely used consumer operating systems). In some
cases, more than half of the cost of a new computer is the preloaded
Microsoft software (which costs Microsoft almost nothing to make).
Many non-Microsoft software products perform poorly because
Microsoft is constantly fiddling with Windows and refuses to release
the source code that developers need to write for.
Windows XP includes many new bundled features which clearly
should be sold as separate applications and not as part of the
operating system. This practice is clearly illegal and destroys
innovation and competition. If this practice is not stopped,
Microsoft will soon have a monopoly in virtually the entire personal
computer software industry.
TERMINATE THE ILLEGAL MONOPOLY! STOP THE BUNDLING! STOP WINDOWS
XP!
PROTECT REAL JAVA FROM MICROSOFT'S ILLEGAL ATTEMPT TO DESTROY
COMPETITION! BREAK UP MICROSOFT!
AND THROW GATES AND BALMER IN JAIL!!!!!!
William J. Crittenden
Law Office
1325 Fourth Avenue, #1730
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 729-0259
[email protected]
MTC-00008263
From: DYMOND Christopher S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I am shocked at what appears to be a disregard for anti-trust
laws and the lack of timeliness of enforcing them.
I ask that you please issue a punishment for Microsoft's
violations that is both sufficiently punitive to dissuade future
companies from behaving as Microsoft has and that it is done
quickly.
Christopher Dymond
Salem, Oregon
MTC-00008264
From: David Ayala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen: Please accept this message as my support for the
proposed settlement. As a result, I believe Microsoft has learned to
act and behave in a manner that promotes fair trade and
competitiveness in the business world. Thank you.
D. Ayala, Jr.
West Hills, California
MTC-00008265
From: John McIntosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement Please lay off Microsoft. I have no
financial interest in the company.
John
MTC-00008266
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:34pm
Subject: microsoft case
please leave microsoft alone. the consumers like me are not
complaining, only competitors who aren't as inovative, nor as
consumer oriented. microsoft has done an excellent job for the publi
worldwide. it's time the justice dept focused on somebody committing
a crime that hurts the public. leave them alone and allow them to
get back to the business of making a major contribution to the
public and business world.
MTC-00008267
From: paul kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:32pm
Subject: RE; Microsoft settlement.
Dear DOJ:
I have followed the MSFT ``case'' and want to add my voice to
those of many others. The 18 States continuing efforts to force MSFT
to divest is a poor use of valuable time and seems to be largely
politically motivated at
[[Page 25005]]
this time. My vote is to move on quickly to more pressing issues,
such as Enron and collusion between accountancy and business today
that are costing consumers and shareholders Billions.
Thank you.
P Kelly, MD
MTC-00008269
From: Sandy Armsrtong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In early 2000, I had made investments, mostly with money
inherited from my mother's lifetime savings, on the advise of my
investment counselors, for myself and my children. I had about one
fourth of what I needed to retire and my children had about enough
for college educations and a future down payment on a house. My
children were set for a good start in life and I had a start toward
financial security for my future. Then, disaster came, in the form
of a suit against Microsoft. In my opinion, this suit was the
catalyst of the tremendous downfall in the stock market. This
occurrence has left me and my children with only 40% of the money we
had in early 2000. I never felt that Microsoft was at fault in the
first place. What has happened to Americans who have budgeted and
saved all of their lives to make their and their children's futures
secure in order to improve profits of a few disgruntled corporations
who were not able to compete with the innovations of Microsoft is
very wrong.
Nothing can be done to compensate for the devastation caused to
the American people by those who brought the suit against Microsoft,
but the best that can be done is to finalize the Microsoft
settlement which has been agreed upon by nine states as well as the
federal government. It is time to put an end to this suit. It is my
hope that such an decision will act as another catalyst to bring the
stock market once more to more favorable gains and that my children
and I may recoup some of our tremendous losses.
PLEASE, rule in favor of the present Microsoft agreement
Thank you,
Sandra M. Armstrong
Santa Cruz, California
MTC-00008270
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:35pm
Subject: Final Determination of this case
This has gone on far too long. I think it is too strong against
Microsoft. It requires that Microsoft disclose all the interface and
related technical information for the middleware use and much more I
don't think is fair. If Microsoft is smart enough to have figured it
all out why do they have to give it away. Let the competitors come
up with another way to get their middleware to be compatible. It
seems to me you are punishing someone, who has been creative,
because the other party can't come up with a better idea and
product. If Microsoft agreed then let's get it over with and move
on.
Lucille Finamore
MTC-00008271
From: Brown, Terry
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I consider the entire pursuit of Microsoft for antitrust
violations a witch hunt against a company that is guilty of nothing
more than engaging in production and free trade in what, upon my
last reading of the constitution, was a free and capitalistic
society. Based on the evidence and judgments I have reviewed to
date, I oppose any form of punishment or sanction against Microsoft.
Let the free market reign.
Terry S. Brown
Vice President, Manufacturing and Process Industry Practice
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Inc.
55 Old Bedford Road Lincoln, MA 01773
Tel. 781.402.1183
Fax 703.991.7542
Cell 781.929.2713 [email protected]
Join Balanced Scorecard Online Free at http://www.bscol.com
MTC-00008272
From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>;
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>;
[email protected]>; [email protected]>;
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>;
[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I'm writing to ask you to consider removing all preload contract
terms that require only Microsoft operating systems as well as
requiring Microsoft to release all information regarding their
proprietary file formats and APIs to be as part of any real
settlement of their predatory monopoly finding. As it stands now the
proposed settlement is worthless and a complete sellout by the USDOJ
and does absolutely nothing other then validate their monopoly
status and treat it as if it is a natural outcome. Microsoft has
developed and expanded their monopoly by forcing hardware
manufacturers to only pre-install
Microsoft operating systems on personal computers for years. It
is a disgrace that IBM will not pre-load its own superior computer
operating system (OS/2) on its own personal computers. Last year
during the trial, several major manufacturers had declared they
would offer the Linux operating system as a pre-load option. Then it
was only to be available on a few models, then only on one or two
models, now, after the farce of a settlement outcome of the trial,
try and find more then a handful if any among all the major
manufacturers. Microsoft can only continue its monopoly by coersion,
requiring only its own software on every PC and charging a Microsoft
tax on those of us who purchase these systems, but don't want and
will not use their products. The only real solution is to make the
operating system an option and all systems must be allowed to be
sold without an operating system, or with a choice including but not
necessarily limited to, OS/2, eComStation Linux, FreeBSD, and
Microsoft's current version of WIndows.
Currently on my chosen platform, IBM's OS/2 and Serenity
System's eComStation (an OEM version of OS/2), I can get some
interchange of documents with Microsoft Word and Excel using Lotus
SmartSuite or Star Office, but other formats like PowerPoint and
Microsoft Media Player are completely inaccessible. Open formats and
APIs can be ported over to non-Microsoft platforms and break
Microsoft's stranglehold on the world's information. Making all
their proprietary formats and APIs open and freely available will
allow those of us who don't use Microsoft products to not be locked
out of electronic discourse and electronic media features.
Please stand firm and refuse to give in to the monopolist
Microsoft organization.
Mark Dodel --
From the OS/2 Desktop of: Mark Dodel
``The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate
the growth of p rivate power to a point where it becomes stronger
than their democratic State it self. That in it's essence, is
Fascism--ownership of government by an individ ual, by a group or by
any controlling private power.'' Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message
proposing the Monopoly Investigation, 1938
MTC-00008273
From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``sbskinner'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 6:45 PM
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Dear Ms. Mills,
I am delighted that you continue to reject the administration's
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. Although the below
experience I had this morning is trivial, I thought you might like
to view it from a very basic consumer standpoint. I am sending this
also to the AGs of Massachusetts, California, West Virginia,
Minnesota and to the District of Columbia (I haven't at this time
located the remaining AGs rejecting the settlement).
Thank you again, and happy holidays.
Suzanne B. Skinner
To: Microsoft Customer Service
Dated December 15, 2001
``For the last week or more, every time Ia fter I signed into
hotmail, whether via Netscape Communicator 4.78 or from IE 6, the
home page either didn't load at all, OR I had to keep refreshing the
page to make it load.
Then, next, while trying to access my inbox/junk mail boxes, the
same thing occurred. Finally, this very morning and as I speak, when
I logged on via IE, half the home page appeared on the screen AND
the other half of the screen had that disgusting white page that
said to ``Detect network settings,'' etc, because my browser could
not
[[Page 25006]]
support nahda nahda nahda... Also my IE often a/or continually
rebuffs my ability to access even the most innocent of sites: e.g.
last night to get to Google I had to perform the most herculean
efforts and even then, most of the links (e.g. such real horrors as
perhaps symantec, ancestry.com, also came up with the white
``network ... page and I was unable to get through. Fully
exasperated, I then disabled cookies entirely (usually I keep them
to return to sender), and the same tragic story was repeated.
Netscape, while giving me the very same Hotmail issues, does allow
me, even with cookies returned to sender, access to these above-
mentioned wild sites without problem.
WHAT IS HAPPENING?
Suzanne B. Skinner
P.S. Speaking of bugs, at least three or four times over the
each of the last five or six weeks, that ``do you wish to debug
now'' error pops up. I would be glad to debug, if only the process
didn't seem to occupy a vast amount of time, thereby leaving me too
exhausted to finish up the rest of what I have to do online.
sbs
P.P. S. NOW: I am unable to send this email to you because, even
though THERE IS NOT TOPIC TO BE SELECTED IN THE TOPIC AREA DROP-DOWN
MENU, I CANNOT SEND THIS TO YOU BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SELECTED A TOPIC!
THIS IS REALLY BAD, GUYS. I have to cut and paste this complaint
into a word document to save it so I can send it via some other
route. What a disaster.
P.P.S.S. NEXT NEXT: I have tried to follow your rotten process
to get to tech support, and low nothing I can do can get me there. I
am only trying to report a problem with Hotmail; I have been sent
all you're your 900 sites and get stuck back where I started. This
is a really asinine ``computer lack of support'' program. I could
get Bill Gates or the Pentagon more easily than getting through to
you.no wonder every one I know is hoping that Linux is us and
running lots of stuff in the near future. Just now, immediately
before I was retuned to the ``get help from a Microsoft support (the
operative word) professional, I was given a full screen announcement
that LO there was a run time error. Are you guys talking with each
other? Where the heck is the ability to reach customer service? I am
planning to send a copy of this notice to the justice departments
anti-monopoly unit, as well as to the attorneys general of every
state and--if I have to--every European Community nation that
refuses to settle the anti-trust suit against you.
Now I have to find another way to reach Customer Disservice,
without going through this painful and futile process.''
As an afternote, once again, you might be interested to know
that when I went to the WV AGs website just a few minutes earlier,
and tried to send this email to that office, the above-mentioned
``can't be displayed: detect network settings, etc'' came up and
prevented my emailing Mr. McGraw. Very small potatoes, but very big
irritation--plus two more requests from Microsoft for runtime error
and another two requests to debug. Just keeps us chuckling, doesn't
it?
Thank you again.
MTC-00008274
From: Allan Tingey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
To whom it may concern,
I am a computer scientist working in human genetics research at
the University of Utah and I just wanted to pass along my feelings
about the Microsoft settlement. I can tell you, without question,
that the Microsoft monopoly has made our work more difficult and
wasted considerable tax dollars. Because there is no viable
alternative, we are forced to purchase Windows systems for each
workers desk so that the usual desktop applications are available.
The Microsoft operating systems, however, are not adequate for our
research so additional UNIX systems must be purchased. The
incompatibility of the systems creates many problems and the extra
hardware and training needed to operate both systems is very
wasteful.
``Multi-user'' operating systems like UNIX, Linux, and now Mac-
OS, are able to handle the work of many people if only the
application software were available. The ``single-user'' operating
systems from Microsoft require the purchase of a personal computer
and software licenses for every user and it is incredibly wasteful.
Because of the Microsoft monopoly, tax dollars are purchasing 50 to
100 times as many computers as are really needed with similar
inefficiencies in software licensing.
As a computer scientist and a tax payer, I hope to see the
Microsoft monopoly completely dismantled so a more efficient method
of computing can be adopted.
Allan Tingey
University of Utah
20 South 2030
East Salt Lake City, UT 84112
810-581-4157
[email protected]
MTC-00008275
From: Diane (038) Roland Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sirs,
I believe that Microsoft has done no wrong and should not be
punished for their actions. Was Ford guilty in the early 1900's,
when he dominated the auto industry? The courts said no. I see a
remarkable similarity to the Microsoft suit, and the Ford suit.
Those who can't compete, have a ``sour grapes'' attitude. I worked
on top secret programs that the government and the vendor both used
Microsoft programs to exchange data via the internet, because the
``system'' worked. This saved the government and the taxpayer lots
of money.
Microsoft has done the world a favor by developing what amounts
to be a ``standard'' that the world can use to advance all parties.
To punish them for this great accomplishment, would be wrong. All
government, should stay out of business that does no one harm. If
you want to get involved in bad business practices, look into Enron.
How about when oil companies ``conspire'' to raise prices ($3.00/
gal) for no reason?
Thank you for your time and efforts.
H.R. Freeman
[email protected]
MTC-00008276
From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Robert Lyday'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:03 PM
Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
The government's proposed settlement is a disaster. Please do
not settle according to these standards! Hold out for a settlement
that will really hold MS' feet to the fire! The government's
settlement will do almost nothing at all to stop MS' illegal
behavior, which has almost destroyed computing. MS must be stopped
for the sake of the industry and businesses and consumers all over
the world! Bob
Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows '95.
MTC-00008277
From: Dan Broughton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I wish to express my opinion that this litigation has gone on
long enough! Without Microsoft where would PC users be? Would the
``information superhighway'' be all that it has become without the
innovative software produced by Microsoft? The answer to both these
questions is no! It`s beyond me why the FEDS deem success a criminal
act.
SETTLE THE DAMN THING, ALREADY--I AM SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT!!!
Dan
MTC-00008278
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ: As taxpayers and citizens of the US, we are frustrated by
the ongoing legal battle waged by your department against Microsoft.
It is time to move on. The proposed remedies are enough! Let's move
on and spend our energies and resources on rebuilding our damaged
nation, not on tearing down one of our most innovative companies.
Let's use our resources, enriched by Microsoft and other technology-
related companies, to take our country to the next level.
Accept the proposed settlement and encourage the hold-out states
to do the same.
Thank you,
Callene Lumbard
Callene Lumbard
4600 177 Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
425-641-3688
[email protected]
MTC-00008279
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25007]]
Please add my name to the list of those who strongly oppose the
proposed settlement agreement. The proposed settlement does nothing
to curb the competitive tactics of a proven monopolistic predator
and Microsoft continues to violate provisions of the Sherman Act
(i.e., break the law) even as I type this e-mail. Surely our legal
system can do more to ensure justice than the politically inspired
``sell out'' agreement offered by the Justice Department.
Mike Perkins
MTC-00008280
From: Michael Brunskill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:49pm
Subject: Public Comment Period
Dear Sirs,
As a computer user who has participated in the evolution of
computer systems from the old teletype terminals of the Dartmouth
Timesharing System on which I learned to program in Basic in 1973 to
the incredible PC technology that exists today, I can say
emphatically that Microsoft has done more to improve and enhance
computing than any other single entity.
To say that Microsoft has stiffled competition is ludicrous. The
cost of software, absolute and relative, has plunged dramatically
because of the WORLD's acceptance Microsoft's Windows operating
system. The very fact that the closest competitor, LINUX, is FREE to
consumers proves this point. Another competing product to
Microsoft's Office product line, Star Office, is also FREE, and like
all others that want to have any chance of acceptance, the files are
fully exchangeable with Microsoft systems. I well remember the days
of several competing word processing systems, none of which were
interchangeable, which truly hampered commerce. Microsoft, though
it's innovation and superior products, has set the standard
WORLDWIDE for consumer software interoperability far better than any
government organization ever could. This in turn has lead to
sustained increases in worker productivity, which have been a major
factor in the economic boom of the 90's.
One of the largest detractors of Microsoft is America OnLine.
While Microsoft has opened up it's operating system to any competent
software developer, AOL software is proprietary and closed. They do
not use industry standards for such basic services as email and news
services, requiring the use of their unique software for this
purpose. Please consider the source in evaluating the objections to
this settlement, which is still punative to Microsoft in my opinion
and entirely uneccessary.
Best Regards
Mike Brunskill
76 Cranbury Neck Road
Cranbury, NJ 08512
[email protected]
MTC-00008281
From: J MALLOY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has built the best mousetrap. Let them sell it.
Why should my cost include the wages of half of the lawyers in
Washington. Please draw this to a close.
MTC-00008282
From: Bertram Kundert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:48pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
As an IT professional of 11 years standing, I have little
confidence that the stated remedies will do much to restrain
Microsoft from past anti-competitive practices. More safe guards and
clear punishment for transgressions need to be in place. As long as
they can claim that adding programs to the operating system is
``innovation'' they can use their monopoly power to squeeze out any
new concept that appears, and claim it for themselves. This is how
they have consistently acted in the past and there seems no reason
to believe that they will change in the future.
Bertram Kundert
University of Utah
101 Wasatch Drive
Eccles Broadcast Center
Salt Lake City,
Utah 84112
801-581-5698
[email protected]
MTC-00008283
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern, I feel strongly that the current
settlement that was reached by Microsoft and the Justice Department
is fair and equitable. It makes no sense to continue the current law
suit being made by several states. If half of the current law suit
particpants agreed to the settlement, then why are the half trying
to prolong the process. The longer the case continues, the more it
going to cost the tax payers. Microsoft has been a pillar for the
High Tech industry and without them and their contributions, I don't
believe the many industries that exists today could have existed.
Microsoft is a business that has been very successful and because
they have been successful, others in the same field are just jealous
of their accomplishements. How many companies in the world have not
done ``things'' that would increase their assets, even if it were a
little not according to Anti-Monopoly rules.
I am glad that the current judge in this case is taking the
appropriate actions to end this ridicules time consuming case
against a respectable company that has been and will continue to be
successful. Their projects and service to the customers is great and
to say that they are monopolizing the software market, and that
consumers do not have a choice, is really stupid. Let the company be
and stop wasting tax payers money for a few companies that can't
stand the competition.
MTC-00008284
From: Linda Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I give thanks that a settlement can be reached and am anxious
for this great company to be able to get back to work on what they
do best without fear of government intervention.
Linda Johnson, 308 Seventh Street
Fort Madison, Iowa 52627
MTC-00008285
From: Jim McKinney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think the government should be happy with any settlement from
Microsoft. In my opinion, the government should leave Microsoft
alone to do whatever is necessary for it (and the rest of the tech
industry) to survive.
Jim McKinney
14691 Bueno Drive
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Professor, Mathematics; Calif. State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona
MTC-00008286
From: herb1000
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is high time the DOJ put this mess to rest. We do not approve
of our tax dollars being used to help certain competitors compete
with Microsoft. This is supposed to be a free market. If IBM's OS2,
Linux and Unix cannot compete with Windows, it is not the Goverments
problem. You are in danger of unfairly destroying the only
competition the huge AOL-Time Warner conglomorate has.
This has never been about protecting consumers.......it IS about
helping certain competitors who made some poor business decisions.
Herb & Loretta DeVaan
1749 Tanner Circle Henderson NV 89012
[email protected]
MTC-00008287
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:54pm
Subject: MS Opinion
We need a technologist and entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Let's
settle this thing and move on, hopefully without disabling the
software and costing the consumer more money.
Having lived in the silicon valley for some 20+years, I have
confidence that technology will always be competitive.
MTC-00008288
From: EDWARD W REID
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice: For years the competitors of Microsoft
have been trying to force it to permit them to use its successful
technology, a technology which they themselves could not develop,
and in the process tried to viciously destroy Microsoft. Microsoft
quite naturally resisted these efforts, but finally an agreement has
been reached by most of those involved. However, a small remaining
greedy cadre of states and competitors are hanging on for the
``kill''.
[[Page 25008]]
The judge should recognize the motivations of this cadre and end
this process with the Agreement for the good of the country
MTC-00008289
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:56pm
Subject: Settlement
I cannot understand why this case is still going on because of a
few states who apparently are not tending their own affairs and are
cheating their constituents while they are squandering their time
and their state's money while they are away from the real work they
should be doing and wallowing in their 5 minutes of fame.
Microsoft has done more for more people throughout the world
than any other company in history. Thanks to Bill Gates and
Microsoft, and the wise decision I made years ago to buy their
stock, I am assured of a decent retirement. I am sick and tired of
seeing success being punished in our country and as soon as someone
has it the leeches come out of the woodwork to bleed them dry with
idiotic lawsuits, etc. PLEASE, let's get over it and let Microsoft
progress and continue to do so much good for so many.
Malena Preston
Bothell, WA.
MTC-00008290
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Isn't it about time to let go and let the settlement go forward.
Billy P. Langfeldt, 3115 25th Street, Boulder, CO 80304-2842
[email protected]. Let it GO!!
MTC-00008291
From: Oscar Myre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, I find the proposed Microsoft settlement to be
unacceptable.
It fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy:
halting the illegal conduct, promoting competition in this industry,
and depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
Please don't except the settlement. Thank you.
God Bless,
Oscar Myre
http://omoriginals.com
360.575.9839 (office)
305.422.8285 (fax)
MTC-00008292
From: Fred Fiechter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen: Let the Microsoft settlement stand and keep the few
special interests with their large lobying budgets out of the
resolution process. Our system of justice and our nation are ready
to move on in the interest of fairness and the American economic
system. Enough is enough!
Frederick C. Fiechter III
162 Stone Block Row
Wilm., DE 19807
(302)656-6643
MTC-00008293
From: Nick Trikouros
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion this has been a plot by Microsoft's competitors to
derail the company. ``We can't compete with them so lets get
together and sue.'' What went on in the Jackson court was a
travesty. That he is still a sitting judge is a joke. I also believe
that this case has harmed our economy by giving the EC an excuse to
follow through with their version. I can't prove this, but I feel
that they (EC) were emboldened to stop the GE/Honeywell merger. This
situation with the states not excepting the compromise is nothing
but politics by the (would be Governors/Senators) State Attorney
Generals. For the sake of the industry and our economy, this should
end now.
Sincerely,
Nicholas M. Trikouros
MTC-00008294
From: Atlas Int'l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I believe the DOJ has buckled to the very thugs it purports to
protect U.S. citizens from. Microsoft has done nothing but bully its
way to the top of the technology heap by infiltrating one segment of
tech business sector after the other, infecting each with its own
brand of assimilation or destruction.
In `punishing' Microsoft by literally forcing it into a market
in which it is yet have a stranglehold (the education market) you
are in effect bowing to the power of the `almighty' MS. This disease
of a company needs to be broken up, disbanded or otherwise
prohibited from entering and dominating other markets--not forced
into ones they've yet to conquer.
Please know that I could easily write volumes on topics ranging
from free competition, business ethics, the bastardization of
corporate America right down to basic criminal acts and corporate
responsibility. But, as you are no doubt busy weeding through
hundreds of thousands of such letters, let me just cast my vote of
disapproval at the job being done by the government.
Boo!
Bob Holkan
8109 Otium Way
Antelope, CA
95843 (916) 725-4055
MTC-00008295
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please consider immediate settlement of the Microsoft antitrust
case. Only competitors of MS and the various attorneys benefit from
dragging it on and on.
Regards,
Tom and Betty Carhart, Houston, Texas
MTC-00008296
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think this litigation should stop right now. The settlement is
fair, and any delay can only prolong the recession.
Frank Keeshan
MTC-00008297
From: Spilger Philip G (Phil) PSNS
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Department of Justice,
As a consumer, I want to see this lawsuit against Microsoft
settled. My own personal opinion is we consumers have only benefited
from the Microsoft Corporation's innovations. The accusations
against Microsoft are ludicrous. Unfortunately, a few special
interests are attempting to use this review period to derail the
settlement and prolong this litigation even in the midst of
uncertain economic times. The last thing the American economy needs
is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and
stifles innovation.
Phil Spilger, 10838 Evergreen Terrace SW,
Lakewood, WA. 98498
MTC-00008298
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This has dragged on long enough. The settlement agreed upon by
the U.S. Gov't and the nine states involved is fair and settling
this now is certainly in the best interest of the public. We do not
need more prolonged litigation.
Settle!
Carol R. Lawrence
MTC-00008299
From: davidhenryart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support a prompt settlement to the Microsoft suit.
David Henry
MTC-00008300
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
I am writing this e-mail to let you know what I think of your
attack on Microsoft.
It seems to me that the DOJ misunderstands basic economics. In a
free society the market will set prices and standards that they are
willing to pay. And, if a company tries to charge to much for their
product competition will bring them back to a rational price or in
to bankruptcy. Competition is what moves us forward, without it
their would be no need to advance because their would be no
incentive. Competition is what weeds out the companies that don't
have the insight to move forward. But this is not a bad thing. A
[[Page 25009]]
company is trying to get a piece of the market share. They do this
by getting the best product for the best price to the customer. If a
company cannot do this it is not their competitors fault. The market
will always weed out those companies that don't make the most out of
their resources. More govt controls are not what is needed. If you
look into your history books you will see what that has done over
and over again. It has and will crush progress every time. So I hope
that America can become the first country to recognize it before it
crushes us.
In conclusion I would like to state that each individual knows
or should know their economic priorities. Man is not born with the
right to have a computer or a certain software system. Microsoft nor
any other company owes them anything. If they like the product and
have the economic means to purchase it they should, if not so be it.
It is not up to the government to decide which company we put our
money into.
Thank you for your time
Ray Kilmer
MTC-00008301
From: Dan Warrensford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies/gentlemen:
Reject the arguments of the neo-Fascists who are still
attempting to crucify Microsoft--for doing what Capitalists are
supposed to do: Use creativity to make our lives better. No one has
ever forced anyone else to use Internet Explorer, or any other
Microsoft product. All of Microsoft's ``competitors'' have been free
to develop better, more attractive products; none of the
``competitors'' should be allowed to use DoJ or U.S. Taxpayers'
money to attack Microsoft.
Tell each who wishes to use the U.S. Government as a club to
``get a life.''
Thanks/regards,
Dan Warrensford
40 Uranus Ave. Merritt Island FL 32953-3158 (321) 453-2217;
[email protected]
MTC-00008302
From: Douglas Mayne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
Here are my comments regarding the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft Anti-trust Case.
1. The difference between Judge Jackson's proposed breakup and
the proposed settlement is much too great. This gives the perception
that a company can win if it can just outlast those pursuing it. The
judiciary should be more stable than the executive, and not appear
to flow with changes in administration.
2. While Judge Jackson's behavior outside the court was stupid
and a poor example to set as the court's representative, it should
not have bearing on the finding of fact. However, if his behaviour
is deemed too egregious, then start over from the beginning.
3. Microsoft's behaviour at trial was outrageous and
contemptible. Here is a specific instance which stands out: the
infamous Internet Explorer video with James Allchin on the stand.
This video was requested by the court and was willfully manipulated
to show an untruth. The video was a mockery, and Allchin and others
responsible should be held accountable. It should not be just
``another product demo'' when presenting evidence in a U.S. court
proceeding. Also, Gates statements about Microsoft keeping the
companies overall financial records using paper and pencil were
outrageous lies, considering his statements in ``The Road Ahead.''
4. Microsoft's agenda is to make money. They have been
successful in capturing market share in every segment of the
software industry where they chosen to compete. It has been noted
that Microsoft's cash reserves can be used to out spend any rival in
product advertising and governmental lobbying.
5. Microsoft's business agenda does not complement the nation's
desire to secure its computer infrastructure. Microsoft's software
vulnerabilities have led to exploitation and business interruption.
Any settlement, short of the breakup, needs to address how Microsoft
will work with the software community to address this serious
problem. The ``code red'' virus has shown a few infected systems
connected to a high speed network can do great damage.
6. Microsoft's business agenda forces an ``upgrade path'' upon
end users to ensure a continuing revenue stream. This is not
necessary or rational, especially now that the PC has matured and
works well enough for everyday business use. Software should be
treated the same as a ``consumer durable good,'' much like a washing
machine. Case in point: the comparable prices for Office XP and a
Maytag washer. Microsoft's approach is to simply declare software
obsolete, and unsupported after a specified date. This is not the
best choice for business, as new versions always contain bugs and
vulnerabilities. The maturity of Windows NT at Service Pack 6
provides a stable base to build a business on, and appears to have
advantages over later, more complex software such as Windows 2000 or
Windows XP.
Because Microsoft holds the copyright to their software, they
can choose to market it how they please, or withdraw it from the
market entirely. This limits consumer choice and is unfair.
In the breakup scenario, I envisioned the ``children'' competing
against one another to distiguish their product. A product offering
the most stable and secure platform would have had appeal to
business users, and would have been worth supporting through
continuing fees for bug and security fixes. Without the breakup,
this is an unlikely outcome as Microsoft sees there is much more
profit in entirely new versions.
7. Without a major remedy, Microsoft's egregious behaviour will
continue. Consumers will have less choice and be forced to pay the
monopolist's price. This is the continuing harm to consumers which
was a finding of fact.
Thank You,
Douglas D. Mayne
Salt Lake City, Utah
MTC-00008303
From: Malcolm C King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:15pm
Subject: the good it has done..
Without Windows from Microsoft, I wouldn't have a computer, know
what the Internet was nor have a lot of contact with the world of
2002. I am stunned by what the DofJ thinks is wrong with Microsoft.
As usual, no one in the real world (non-government) is offended,
hurt nor angry with someone who has done a good thing for the
majority of of Americans. Show me the millions of people that
complained about ``M'' then go after them with all your might. Until
then chase the millions of truly bad people there are in Americe,
like the FBI office in Boston.
MTC-00008304
From: laverne(u)jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The Tunney Act should be accepted as law, and the oppressive law
suite against Microsoft ended. The court of appeals ruling seems to
be fair to all parties. I do not think that further action against
Microsoft is in the public's best interest.
MTC-00008305
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe the Microsoft settlement is reasonable and fair and
that it is time to put an end to all litigation regarding this
matter. Please add my name to the list of those in favor of the
settlement and make my opinion known to the District Court.
God Bless America,
Rosemary Montesi
15 Westway Road
Wayland, MA 01778
MTC-00008306
From: Alys Hinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My personal opinion is that Microsoft is the only software
company that provided the public with the tools necessary to use the
internet. Originally all of the software programs written for the
computer; with the exception of Apple and the only programs that
were written for Apple had to be used on a Apple computer, therefore
if you owned anyother brand of computer Apple software was not
compatible; were individual programs, the public had to be a
computer wizard or guru to make them fit together, the only way
business's could operate was to take individual reports from each
software company and put them together by hand, none of the programs
integrated. Microsoft's generosity gave the public the tools it
needed to use the computer for all aspects of a business operation,
from writing letters, to posting reminders on payments due, to
business reports that allowed consolidated financial information
available for day to day operations of their business.
At the time Microsoft put together the consolidated computer
program that a
[[Page 25010]]
layman could understand and use, the other computer companies
offered only spread sheets, letter writing programs, etc. that an
individual had to have the training to put that information together
with another report before the information was usable.
I believe Microsoft was a public servant, they refined the
reports and programs so that the individual could use them in the
manner in which the bookkeeping world had recorded it's information
from the beginning. Microsoft allowed the small business man to gain
information perternant to his business with the same speed and
accuracy that big business had been able to do, allowing the middle
man to operate more competitively.
If the companies bringing the lawsuits against Microsoft had
been as wise as Microsoft and offered their reports and information
to the public that was usable by the public, before Microsoft they
would have gained the same amount of public esteem and been as
fortunate as Microsoft.
I feel the suit against Microsoft should be settled, without
added penalties, I feel Microsoft has given the people a tool that
no one else could deliver, and with their help the economy has
benefitted as well as Microsoft.
Alys Hinkle, 290 Adams Street, Lander, WY 82520
307-332-3756
MTC-00008307
From: Elaine Sipes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:20pm
Subject:
It is time that the govenrment get off of Microsoft's back. I
think that It is time that the govenrment get off of Microsoft's
back. I think that the states still trying to battle this issue are
just trying to get a free hand out of cash. Thank God for Bill
Gates, and the jobs that he has brought to the Pacific Northwest. It
is time for the money grabbers in government to BACK OFF.
Elaine Sipes
MTC-00008308
From: Kupfer, Ellen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the proposed settlement. As research
shows there is a significant gap along economic lines in
availability of technology. 82% of the classrooms in richer
communities are connected to the Internet while only 60%of the
classroons in lower income classrooms have access. Funds are tight
in Wisconsin due to our revenue control law which limits the amount
a school district can raise to fund education.In addition we have a
huge budget deficit. Education is one area that is being talked
aboaut as a source of money to help balance the budget. Many schools
need computers and Internet for their students. This would help them
tremendously. Life is not a level playing field for many of our
students. Their families cannot afford computers at home so school
is the one place that they may have access to them and the help they
bring. There is a huge world out there that many would never know
without the Internet.
Educators must be trained to use the technology so they can
comfortably implement it in the classroom. It is the teacher in the
classroom that most influences the student mastery and use of new
knowledge. The component of teacher training is critical.
I hope that the court will support the goals as set forth in the
settlement. If we truly are to leave no child behind we must give
them all the tools they need to be successful.
Thank you for your time,
Ellen Kupfer
KEA, President
CC:weac.org
MTC-00008309
From: kirsten matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
PLEASE SETTLE THIS CASE!
ONLY IN AMERICA WOULD OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GO AFTER THE ONE
COMPANY WHO HAS DONE THE MOST TO DRIVE THE ECONOMY.
SHOW ME ANOTHER COMPANY WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE WORLD AS MUCH
AS MICROSOFT.
I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW MANY YEARS THIS HAS BEEN ON GOING!
SINCERELY,
KIRSTEN
MATSON
MTC-00008311
From: Bill Brent
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the United States Government and the Justice Department
to refrain from punishing Microsoft any further. Their actions do
not warrant prosecution by the Justice Department under the
antitrust laws. They have not coerced anyone. They are being
punished simply for being better than their competitors.
Bill Brent
Writer
Portland, Oregon
MTC-00008312
From: Gloria Gottiaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case should now be settled once and for all.
Gloria Gottiaux
MTC-00008313
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my extreme displeasure at the he
proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is FAR TOO LENIENT!
Among the settlements obvious flaws are:
NO punishment for past behavior.
NO attempt to make them lose the spoils of their crimes
NOT leveling the competitive playing field enough Without
stronger government intervention Microsoft will control the Instant
Messaging and Media Player markets using same tactics they used in
the Browser markets--UNFAIR BUNDLING.
Read the popular press! EVERY JOURNALIST FROM JUST ABOUT EVERY
PUBLICATION AGREES THE SETTLEMENT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH.
Sincerely
Michael A Fitzgerald
Alexandria, VA
MTC-00008314
From: Ralph Weil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please settle this problem with Microsoft and let us get back to
the business of growing America stronger.
Ralph Weil
MTC-00008315
From: Jack C Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
I feel that the justice system is entirely wrong in allowing the
legal action against Microsoft to continue. Not only has it taken
money from taxpayers and shuffled it into the pockets of the
attorneys but the public is suffering as a result of Microsoft not
being able to develop new generation products.
PLEASE, stop this insanity and let the many schools profit from
the receipt of the free computer systems that Microsoft has agreed
to provide!
Jack C. Moore
330 Hollipat Center Drive, #18
Santa Barbara, California, 93111
MTC-00008316
From: Dixon Teter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs: As a U. S. citizen and as a consumer I am served
extremely well by a free market. Your continued persecution of
businesses and of Microsoft in particular is both economically and
morally wrong. Without Mr. Gates brilliant creation: Microsoft, we
all would be computing 20 years in the past. They compete by bring
us ever more powerful computing tools and at ever less expensive
prices. To viciously attack such a company--attacks begun and
continued primarily out of petty jealousy, the inability to compete,
and partisan politics--has cost the consumer dearly because
Microsoft has been forced to waste incredible assets that could have
been used to develop even more great products.
Your unwarranted attacks on Microsoft have cost hundreds of
billions of dollars in wealth as the result of their causing the
Stock Market to lose a tremendous amount of equity--in short you
have contributed to the enormous slide in the entire sector of
businesses that includes Microsoft.
Do the right thing and just drop it. Do our country and the
economy a huge favor. Kindly desist.
[[Page 25011]]
Drop the suit without prejudice. This has a precedence in the
past with the wrongful IBM suit. Be bold.
Sincerely,
Dixon Teter, Ph.D.
MTC-00008317
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:37pm
Subject: (no subject)
I would like to write a letter saying Leave Microsoft alone, but
please advise.
Carol Richner
A Fan of Bill Gates
MTC-00008318
From: Robert Lantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement
Robert J. Lantz
MTC-00008319
From: Joelle Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For nearly four years, this lawsuit has been dragging on. I
believe that this settlement is absolutely a good thing and is in
the public interest. It's tough on Microsoft, but reasonable and
fair to all parties involved. As a consumer, I overwhelmingly agree
that settlement is good for me, the industry and the American
economy. Let's not prolong this litigation in the midst of uncertain
economic times. The last thing this country needs is more litigation
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Microsoft has never harmed consumers, all they've done is make great
software and be a strong competitor. Microsoft's competitors are
trying to waste our tax dollars by competing with Microsoft through
the court systems, instead of having the courage to do it in the
marketplace. I SUPPORT THIS SETTLEMENT! Let's move on, put an end to
this case and spend my tax dollars on more worthy causes. Like
ending terrorism!!! Thank you for giving me an opportunity to
express my opinion.
Sincerely,
Joelle S. Thompson
San Clemente, CA
MTC-00008320
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
Further litigation is wasteful--let all parties involved except
the current Judge's decision.
MTC-00008321
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe the settlement made with Sicrosoft was fair &
equitable. In our opinion, Microsoft has been instrumential in the
advancement the use of technology which has led to our long bear
market. Let things stand as agreed, and encourage the other 9 states
to drop the matter.
MTC-00008323
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Will you people please do whatever it takes to settle the
Microsoft litigation so that technology can continue to march
forward in the 21st century. Four years ago I paid $79.00 for
Windows. Today I bought my 4th copy of Turbotax by Quicken--Total
cost in 4 years = $160.00. I consider Windows a huge consumer
advantage when I can perform multiple tasks vs. Turbotax, double the
money, for a limited capability. I do not believe you should open a
case on Quicken, but any idiot who says Microsoft has not been
consumer friendly is simply misinformed.
Walter Strain
MTC-00008324
From: Nolan Lameka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I believe that the current settlement is fair for all parties.
The dissident states seem to have political motives behind them
rather than economic.
Nolan A Lameka
MTC-00008325
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle it for drying-out-loud. The only reason the few want to
drag it on is the ``lawyers'' want more case money--they don't give
a hoot otherwise.
JKT
MTC-00008326
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:53pm
Subject: microsoft
I wish the government would just get this thing over with so
Microsoft can keep delivering new products to us computer users and
my shares will increase again. Fight terrorists not our best
companies.
Alan Sirkin
MTC-00008327
From: d-dmiller(a)shaw.ca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:58pm
Subject: Justice
I wish to request that the court consider the liberty that has
been provided by the US Constitution and reach the only rational
conclusion in the Microsoft judgement which is to accept that
company's complete innocence. At this critical juncture of history,
America must uphold liberty even more vigilantly. To judge against
Microsoft would send another chill through business and
entrepreneurial spirit in America. Do not eat the goose that lays
the golden egg.
Dennis R. Miller
3938 Elsey Lane
Victoria BC V8X 5K1
MTC-00008328
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a writer and constant user of computer programs, I am ever so
grateful to innovative companies such as Microsoft that have made my
life so much easier, to say nothing of how much it has improved my
work and that of millions of others. I am appalled at the attempt to
tear down a company that has given the whole world so many better
ways to operate and to communicate. Give me a break! If you have to
spend your time in litigation of American companies, why not pick on
the phony sleezeball outfits that target innocent citizens with get-
rich and other bogus schemes. I applaud Microsoft and the rest of
the world does too, or at least the rest of the ``thinking'' and
hard-working world.
Judith Welsh,
Independent Journalist,
Miami, Florida
MTC-00008329
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is past time that the DOJ acted in the BEST interest of the
USA and its citizens. The settlement signed off on is more than
enough punishment for a case never should have been brought. No
other country in this world is destructive to the inventions and
intellectual property successes of its corporations. But for the
grace of God, the USA has survived the misjudgments (like this one)
by its government--that goes for antitrust as well as how we the
people have been protected from enemies who would (and did) kill us.
Let us not kill our own brilliant ideas anymore.
MTC-00008330
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:03pm
Subject: settlement
Dear Sirs:
I feel Microsoft should not be penalized for creating a great
network that has benefited so many.
Many of his competitors are greedy and want his fame. Let Bill
Gates and Microsoft go and let then invent many wonderful things to
make life easy and safe.
Sincerely,
Valerie Rogers,
Louisville, KY
MTC-00008331
From: McCarthy, Kathleen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I live in Utah. I was told you were looking for opinions as Utah
wants to pursue harsher punishment against Microsoft. My opinion is
that my state should not try to pursue harsher punishment. I think
they should just go with the current settlement and be done with it.
[[Page 25012]]
Spend my tax dollars on pursuing things like violent crimes.
Kathleen McCarthy
Citrix/Client Support
Admin Computing Services
University of Utah
MTC-00008332
From: marv matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:06pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
PLEASE APPROVE THE MICROSOFT SETTELMENT AND LET THIS OUTSTANDING
COMPANY LEAD US OUT OF THE DEPRESSION. EIGHT YEARS OF LITIGATION HAS
COST EVERY AMERICAN WHO HAS A RETIREMENT PLAN TENS OF THOUSAND OF
DOLLARS. ANY COUNTRY WOULD WELCOME MICROSOFT MOVING TO THEIR
COUNTRY. LETS STOP THE LITIGATION AND LET MICROSOFT CONTINUE THE
INNOVATION THAT DRIVES THE ECONOMY.
M.L.MATSON
TACOMA,WA
MTC-00008334
From: John Robert Hooten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 2, 2002
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;
Please register my support for the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft litigation. While I support the proposed settlement, I
thought the entire litigation was absurd and a situation where
certain competitors were successful in convincing the government
that the government should try to even the playing field when the
competition could not win by competition. The litigation should not
have been commenced in the first place.
Like so many other so-called ``senior citizens'' (those over 65,
I guess) before the Microsoft Windows program came out, I had no
idea how to operate a computer or to even turn it on. After Windows
came out, I found that operating a computer was easy for one who
knows virtually nothing about computers.
Because of the ease of operating the computer brought about by
Microsoft for the general public, the company should be given credit
for helping the public rather than attempting to punish Microsoft
for becoming successful and bringing the world of computers to
people like me.
Do not let anyone convince you that Microsoft has done anything
bad for the public because that is not true. The opposite is true.
Now that the government and most states have agreed to settle the
litigation, the settlement should be approved. The government should
go about performing governmental functions and the competition
should go about trying to make a better product for the public.
John Robert Hooten
P.O. Box 452
Oriental, N.C. 28571
Tel # 252-249-2015
cell # 252-526-1111
MTC-00008335
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The damage that is being done to the US technical world postion
by the the lawsuit is terrible. Only the lawyers are making out. I
can't believe the greed of the states and companies for not going
along with the settlement.
Microsoft has done more for this country than any other
technical company in the last 15 years. They should be rewarded for
their contributions to the country and world. Please stop and
consider how Microsoft software know -how has impacted every area of
our lives. Where would we be today in the fields of medicine,
engineering, economics, military and many others without the
Microsoft. Also, please don't forget the the contributions Mr. Gates
has made through his trust funds to various charitable
organizations.
Sincerely,
Tom Dougherty
MTC-00008336
From: Lee Moulds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I am disappointed to learn that the Microsoft Settlement may not
go through. It has taken four years to reach this settlement, which
appears to be fair to all parties concerned. Please do whatever is
necessary to bring this matter to a conclusion so that ``business''
can move forward.
Thank you,
Mildred Lee Moulds,
Phoenix, MD
MTC-00008337
From: james newcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle it Now!! Enough already. Too much even!! Let's got on
with free enterprise, the American way,
Etc. Quit wasting Tax dollars.. Thanks. FED UP
MTC-00008338
From: dave rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is Microsoft a monopoly? Not in the proper, derogatory,
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft
earned its position in the free-market. Give businessmen a break. It
is the only way our country will progress. Why don't you attack the
trial lawyers with the vigor you attack business?
David rose
5 ellen rd
Marblehead, MA
MTC-00008339
From: J Tanne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:13pm
Subject: Rejection of Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Attorney General, Members of the Department of
Justice: I, my family, and many of my friends and business
associates are extremely concerned over the lack of fortitude in the
offer drawn between the Department of Justice and Microsoft
Corporation. The proposed settlement does NOTHING to make repair to
the damages done through years and years of unrestrained illegal
behavior by Microsoft and its executives and will do NOTHING to
level the playing field and bring competition to what was once a
thriving industry. Even now as civil suits are being settled,
Microsoft is walking away unscathed and in some instances planting
the seeds for future market domination. Somehow the mistakes of the
1995 consent decree are dangerously close to being repeated. Please
reconsider this settlement and reconstruct it to offer a REAL remedy
to the Microsoft situation. Until a remedy which TRULY protects
consumers and encourages competition can be reached keep, please the
case alive and in pursuit of a suitable and practical remedy.
Regards,
James Tanne
190 N 980 E
Lindon, UT
84042
MTC-00008340
From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:16pm
Subject: One additional Comment
As I've been reading through the proposed Microsoft settlement,
I have yet to see (what I feel) is one of the most troubling issues.
I refer to the fact that many web sites use Microsoft specific
technology that allow only Windows users to access features on their
sites.
On Yahoo, there are various stories that are available on Yahoos
ON24 service. If you're an Apple (or Linux) user, you're told that
only the windows operating system is supported. The other day I was
at an auto shopping site and clicked a button to price a car. Once
again I received a message saying ``Your operating system is not
supported by this site'' If this type of behavior represented
isolated instances, it wouldn't bother me, but it is becoming more
prevalent on the internet. As an Apple user, I find this very
annoying as well as highly discriminatory.
Basically I'm being told to get rid of my Apple and buy a PC if
I want access. The whole concept of the internet is freedom.
Microsoft has taken that from many of us I think any settlement
should address these issues, by forcing companies (Microsoft
specifically) to produce software that allows all internet users
(regardless of operating system) to be granted the same access to
all websites. I further believe that large corporations such as
Yahoo, AOL and others be prevented from offering Widows only
services. Only when specific services are available to all, should
they be allowed to offer them.
I feel this will go a long way to putting a dent in Microsoft's
monopolistic behavior
Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
[[Page 25013]]
Anthony J Palumbo
80 Ridge Road
Hackettstown, NJ
MTC-00008341
From: Bob Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I think that the issue with Microsoft has gone on for long
enough and that the government needs to bring the matter to an end.
I have been working in the technology arena for the past 15
years. There are many instances where innovative companies such as
Microsoft have appeared to stiffle competition. In fact, the nature
and functionality of the product has been the determining factor for
success or failure of companies.
I would urge that the United States Government highly suggest to
all states to find a settlement with Microsoft so that no more money
is wasted.
Respectively,
Robert C. Harper
MTC-00008342
From: Greg Schroer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:20pm
Subject: Dear Department of Justice:
Dear Department of Justice:
I request that the DOJ settle the Microsoft lawsuit as it is now
proposed. Contrary to what others may say, Micorsoft has done
wonders for my ability, and many others, to create and maintain a
small business.
Without their quality, integrated software I would not be able
to manage my business, and it also would have created problems in
most other businesses. Microsoft products are excellent and that
company should not be critized for doing a good job at innovating
effective software that benefits most of the world. Please settle
this case as soon as possible.
Greg Schroer
4308 106th PL NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
425/828-3858 (Fax:425/828-3543)
MTC-00008343
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think enough time and money has been spent on this suit. As a
taxpayer I have certainly not received any benefit from it. On the
other hand, as a consumer, Microsoft has been of great benefit to me
and to my elderly Dad. After my Mother died he was pretty lost, but
having a computer and being able to access so easily so many
things--he shops on line--and can e-mail family and friends out of
state, has made a big difference in his life and in his children'
and grandchildren's. The settlement has been reached and I think
that the various states attorneys general still whining, like the
one from Massachusetts, are just making political hay.Microsoft has
been a boon to a great many people. If we are going to start chasing
successfull businesses because they have deep pockets, then I think
the role of the government is being perverted. Let the settlement
stand. Enough already.
Diane Parry
MTC-00008344
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
It has come to my attention that the Federal Gov. is still
pursuing the Microsoft case.
As a consumer, I have no particular interest in the Microsoft
Company, but I do use their products. I have been around long enough
to watch what happened to the telephone company and disaster that
continue to spawn out of that mess that us consumers have to pay for
in time, money, and inconvenience.
The government has an agreement with Microsoft, why do you need
to continue to look for ways to interfere with their quality
products and service to us consumers?
In other words, please stop your hounding of this company and
divert your efforts and money to more important dangers such as the
safety of our country.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Morris
[email protected]
MTC-00008345
From: Gary Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough already. I vote to settle this case, and move on.
Netscape/AOL, Sun, Real Player are poor players. I have and use
them all. How about getting these players to improve their products.
So far, they're almost loosers.
Gary Anderson,
Florida.
MTC-00008346
From: Valerie R. Hummel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
It is time to settle and let Microsoft and the American economy
get back to business... the Business of Innovation, which makes us a
great Nation!
I held stock in Microsoft and lost thousands of dollars, just
like many others in this country. I no longer have the stock, so
your decision will not directly affect me, but it affects all of us
indirectly when the economy is hurt by this special interest
lawsuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All companies do business the way Microsoft does. They try to be
the best and beat there competitors full stop!! In this case several
of Microsoft's competitors had friends in our government.
This lawsuit was not for the Consumer!!! Don't make the mistake
of thinking that the American public see our government as
protecting them from the big bad Microsoft...they don't!!!!!!!!!
They see powerful government officials using their influence to help
their powerful friends (competitors of Microsoft)!!! They see you
hurting their stock portfolio and the economy as a
whole!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Valerie R. Hummel MCSE
1430 Hwy 87 East
Billings, MT 59101
(406)867-7685
[email protected]
MTC-00008347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 3, 2002
To: The Department of Justice
I urge you to settle the Microsoft case now. Don't let the
aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's competitors
derail the settlement reached by the federal government and nine
states. The settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all
parties involved. I overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is in
the best interests of consumers, the industry and the American
economy.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Rips
2049 Milan Ave.
South Pasadena, CA 91030
CC:RFC-822=Finflash1-2-02.UM.A.1154.142@commpartners....
MTC-00008348
From: Lee Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed settlement between the DoJ and Microsoft
for the following reasons.
(1) There is no punishment within it. Microsoft was found
guilty, and that finding should have some consequences. Donating
software and a bit of hardware costs them nothing.
(2) It encourages them to strongly enter one of the few markets
in which they still have competition--the education market--and does
so in a manner that allows their competitors little voice. Indeed,
this strategy of giving away software to establish market dominance
is one they've used several times before. It was one of the bases of
the browser lawsuit.
(3) There is little in the agreement to keep Microsoft from
using its ill-gotten monopolies to stifle future competition. Tthe
Windows Media Player versus Real Player and QuickTime competition is
already showing Microsoft to be up to its old tricks in the most
recent releases of Windows.
Lee Larson,
Department of Mathematics,
University of Louisville
Phone: 502-852-6826 Fax: 502-852-7132 E-mail:
[email protected]
MTC-00008349
From: Bill Weirich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I am still trying to determine how I was
``harmed'' by Microsoft. Their products have helped improve the
efficiency of Americans and, as a taxpayer, I have resented the
government's efforts to
[[Page 25014]]
prosecute one of the most successful and innovative corporations in
the US! I therefore feel that the proposed settlement is more than
fair and that the US government should find better witches to hunt.
Bill Weirich
Matrix Capital Markets Group, Inc.
11 South 12th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 780-0060
Fax: (804) 780-0158
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site: www.matrixcapitalmarkets.com
MTC-00008350
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settement
Let's get back to innovating and producing by accepting the
compromise settlement agreement. Lawyers are the only ones to gain
by continuing to yak and yak.
James H. Bolender
MTC-00008351
From: Jim Furlong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Can't we get on with things and settle. It's obvious to me that
the States holding out for a bigger settlement all have business
interests in seeing Microsoft hurt further (ie Utah,Oracle). Tell
those states I wouldn't buy any of their winey products, just
because they can't compete without a tilted playing field.
Please urge them to settle or you will throw them back to ground
zero and dismiss all gains agreed to by the other states.
[email protected]
MTC-00008352
From: Steve Lussier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I beleive that the current Microsoft settlement is fair. Further
action by the Federal Government as well as the 9 states who
continue to fight Micrsoft only serves to weaken an industry already
battered by foriegn competitors using unfair trade practices, an
economic recession, major downturn in capital spending as well as
other factors. Let's not turn the US's future competitive advantage
in software and all- into todays electronics market dominated by
Asian COUNTRIES and manufacturers. I'm the owner of a small business
and the less Government interaction / intervention- in business (
Federal-State-Local ) the better off EVERYONE is.
Steve Lussier
President
Technico Inc
Warren Ohio
MTC-00008353
From: Alfred Petermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's about time that this matter is put to rest. For almost four
years, DOJ has danced with industry advocates that are trying to
succeed in the court of law because they fail daily in the
enterprise markets. The people vote with their wallets and they
support Microsoft products. Just imagine if the government were to
improve its products annually, increase its service and features and
then charge less every year for it. Will never happen, that's why
government proponents are so desperate to derail Microsoft. How much
damage can you guy do to our economy?
Alfred R. Petermann
SpiritMed
MTC-00008354
From: ronnie harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
microsoft settlement should be labeled ``microsoft witch
hunt''... microsoft has done nothing out of the ordinary for modern
business practices...if microsoft is to be the goat for modern
business procedures then every other big and middle sized businesses
should be closed down...if this is what the witch hunters really
want-then they are a bigger danger to our country than all the
``outsider''...stop picking on the engines of our economy and let
them compete with each other without government intervention...
thank you.
MTC-00008355
From: Sam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:39pm
Subject: just leave micro soft alone
THIS THING THAT THE GOVERMENT HAS BEEN DOING TO MICRO SOFT IS A
DISGRACE TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY. I RECOMMEND THAT
YOU PEOPLE JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE AND DROP ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE
BUGGING YOU
EVERETT BROWN
MIAMI OK. 74354
MTC-00008356
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Computing technology changes very rapidly. (I know I have been
in computiong for 40 years.) Dominant companies that do not keep up,
or drop the ball find themselves in oblivion. You cannot blame the
demise of DEC, Digital, Univac, NCR, and others on Microsoft.
Please Let Microsoft innovate. It's very important to computing.
If others cannot keep up, penalizing Microsoft will not give them an
advantage; it'll just hold the whole industry back.
Sincerely,
Alex Zakson
MTC-00008357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:41pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
I am in total favor of the government settling its claim against
Microsoft. In my opinion, I feel it was a bogus, costly,
unjustifiable law suit. It would behoove the government to spend
taxpayer money on more critical issues than going against a
successful company that has done nothing but bring prosperity to
this country. Someone in Washington, DC got greedy and a little
sidetracked with special interest groups in its pursuit of
Microsoft. It's time the Democrats worked for the good of this
country and got off the political merry-go-round it so intently
works to nourish.
Cheri Landers
MTC-00008358
From: David Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand the need to finish this case and move on, but
should we do it without resolving anything? How many times does a
company need to be taken to court for the same type of actions and
each time be told to stop doing it? You're like the parents who say
``No'', but never back it up. No one learns from someone telling
them, ``Stop, and if you do it again, we're going to tell you to
stop again!''
With Windows XP and the .NET strategy, it should be fairly
obvious that Microsoft does NOT intend to stop anti-competitive
practices. The .NET strategy alone is a complete step toward total
domination on the internet. I can't imagine a world where Microsoft
rules the net. This company can't even protect it's on servers from
hackers and we're going to let them control commerce on the net?
If Microsoft had climbed into the position of being the dominant
one because of better products or better business practices, that
would be one thing. But, from the start, this company relied on lies
and bullying to get where it is, and we just tell them to quit. Over
and over again. As the world becomes even more dependent on the
computer, we are only allowing Microsoft to completely monopolize
the situation.
When you control 90% of the world's computers, you control
competition. I don't care how competitive the tech world is, you
can't compete with them.
When Microsoft integrates products into their operating systems,
only Microsoft wins. Most users, and this is their own fault, see
that program there and use it because it's already there for them.
Why go out and get competitors products if you can get it free from
Microsoft, even if it is an inferior product? It's like NBC trying
to run ads on CBS, it's not going to happen and Microsoft knows
this.
The problem also is that Microsoft knows that the government
will not do anything about it. Why stop what got you to the top, if
there are no consequences?
Thanks for your time,
David Stanley
MTC-00008359
From: Joanne Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:42pm
[[Page 25015]]
Subject: microsoft settlement
We believe the settlement is fair and timely. With the present
economic situation in the US, it is time to settle and get on with
other issues that are more important right now, like homeland
security and national defense against terrorism.
Sincerely,
Joanne & Jay Murray
MTC-00008360
From: dan dengel,m.d.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The lawsuit against Microsoft should be settled via the Tunney
Act. Let's get on with our economy. There's been enough damaging
litigation which is NOT helping the consumer!
Daniel M. Dengel M.D.
MTC-00008361
From: rdour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft suit should be settled as quickly as possible with
little damage to the Company. Microsoft has made a major
contribution to American industry's productivity, and provided the
home user with valuable tools.
The suit should never have been brought against the company.
Robert Dourian
9215 Shoshone Ave.
Northridge, Ca., 91325
MTC-00008362
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern. As a strong supporter of Microsoft and
the free Market system of the United States of America,I can't
believe that in the year 2002, we still have 9 states still going
after Microsoft. Don't these Attorney Generals have any thing else
to do with there time. Maybe they should try getting a life instead
of making a career going after Microsoft. If I were the governor of
the 9 Attorney Generals I would fire all of them for wasting the
peoples money. Maybe they should do there Job and go after real
criminals instead of protecting Microsofts competitors like Sun
Microsystems and that idiot larry elison from oricle who everytime
you see him on TV bashes microsoft. I would love to know maybe 5 or
10 years from now when these Attorneys leave office who the ex
Attorney Generals work for or represent in there practices.Would it
be a surprise or not to see them hook with one of these
Companies.Only time will tell.Maybe someone should watch them as
hard as Microsofts Competitors watch Microsoft when they leave
office.
Sincerely
John Redgrave
MTC-00008363
From: SUE HAMILTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom It may Concern
Please leave Microsoft alone. They have done wonders for our
country. Do not stifle their new innovative spirit! How can this be
a monopoly, when Bill Gates and company have done everything from
square one. The did not buy out or take over any other company; as
the oil companies are doing. Please let them alone and let them go
about their business of making our lives easier.
Sue Hamilton
MTC-00008364
From: Sam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:47pm
Subject: just leave micro soft alone
THIS THING THAT THE GOVERMENT HAS BEEN DOING TO MICRO SOFT IS A
DISGRACE TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY. I RECOMMEND THAT
YOU PEOPLE JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE AND DROP ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE
BUGGING YOU PEOPLE. I RELIVE THAT WITHOUT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE THIS
COUNTRY IS GOING TO GO DOWN THE TUBES.
SO GET OUT THE BUSINESS OF TRYING TO RUN EVERYONES BUSINESS.
START TO FIX THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND GET OUT OF THE
BUSINESS WORLD BUSINESS.
MTC-00008365
From: Gary Herbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:50pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Further litigation by either the Justice Dept. or by the states
is like a dog chasing cars. There is nothing to be gained! The
settlement is fair to all parties. The competitors have had their
day in court and now it's time to move on.
The consumer is having it's say by continuing to purchase
Microsoft products.
Gary Herbert
[email protected]
MTC-00008366
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:51pm
Subject: (no subject)
Enough hassle has been given to Microsoft. The ruling was fair
and for all concerned this legal nonsense should cease.
Jane Ross
MTC-00008367
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Department of Justice:
Please let Microsoft get on with their company business. Enough
is enough. I feel all of us need to get on with the business of this
country. I am hopeful that Microsoft and others may develop systems
to help us ferret out the evil people who are trying to kill us and
destroy our country. They can't do this while fighting for their
very being, let alone the cost of lawsuits. I hope you will do
whatever is necessary to encourage the states still trying for more
punishment to cease actions.
God Bless America. She needs everyone to join the fight and not
be fighting each other. Thank you.
Janet Munson
Corpus Christi, TX
MTC-00008368
From: Joseph McCallion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlepeople,
I HOPE IN THE INTEREST OF ALL CONCERNED THAT THIS WHOLE ISSUE
WILL BE PUT TO REST. I FEEL THAT THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE
VARIOUS STATES WHO WANT TO FURTHER THIS CASE SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED.
IT IS TIME TO END THIS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AND MOVE ON. MICROSOFT
HAS BEEN AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY AND SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR ITS
SUCCESS. I OWN A SMALL AMOUNT OF MICROSOFT STOCK AND HAVE BEEN HURT
BY THIS SUIT BECAUSE THIS ACTION HAS DRIVEN DOWN THE PRICE OF THE
STOCK. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
SINCERELY,
JOSEPH McCALLION
MTC-00008369
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I support the Microsoft Settlement with the Federal Government.
This costly litigation should end with this fair settlement. The
cost is to the America People as well as to Microsoft.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan M. Murdoch-Kitt
3217 Chamberlayne Avenue
Richmond, Virginia 23227-4806
MTC-00008370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:57pm
Subject: DOJ:
DOJ:
Why aren't these State attorney generals at the airport?? These
are the real criminals. If you want to take on a monopoly, take on
OPEC.
C> Kapikian
MTC-00008371
From: Jeane Harkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this now the way it has been proposed. The current
proposal seems very fair to all parties concerned. At this time we
should be concerned with other problems on the home front not this
one.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeane
MTC-00008372
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
[[Page 25016]]
Free enterprise was attacked by the Clinton Democrats when they
filed charges against Microsoft. A company that has done more to
encourage the economy than any other organization in our lifetime.
If there had to be a settlement, giving to schools, equipment
needed to advance the knowledge of young folks, is terrific. Mr.
Gates is truly a giver and this just adds to his consideration of
others.
Denny DeVries
MTC-00008373
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:01pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I'm totally IN FAVOR of Mr. Gates & Microsoft & its innovative &
creative products to help better our lives. LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE to
use its time to continue to do this.
Please do not waste their time in court in the name of
``justice'' ... it is NOT justice to stifle the minds of brilliant
people working for a brilliant company producing goods which we all
buy to enhance our endeavors. This IS a free Country ... so let them
be free to continue to innovate.
Thanks,
Kata Patton
MTC-00008374
From: MARK JADEED
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:03pm
Subject: microsofy
To whom it may concern, We feel that the current settlement
between Microsoft and DOJ is fair. We hope that this would end the
dispute and would give a chance for our high tech economy to recover
and lead the world the way it was before litigation.
sincerely,
mark jadeed
MTC-00008375
From: Janet Tashima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:05pm
Subject: msft settlement
I live in silicon valley. I feel a lot of the companies who have
made this action against microsoft have just had inferior technology
and they want to use their political position to have the government
help them be competitive. I do not think that is the role of
government. The companies that have the best tech will win, and that
is the best thing for customers in the long run.
I also own a lot of other tech stocks and I feel that the
justice dept action against Microsoft started the downturn in the
tech econ and the stock market. All one has to do is view the charts
of the tech stocks. I think companies such as Oracle and Sun are so
blinded by their jealousy of Gates, that they are willing to let the
whole tech econ suffer. They seem to not even care if their own
companies have taken a major hit. I guess why should they care, they
are not just a worker in their company and they are billionaires
even if the stock takes a tumble. They do not want to acknowledge
that a multi million dollar action against one tech company is
harmful to tech in general. It is time to move on and get rid of the
excesses of the past administration.
Yours,
Janet Tashima 408-243-8424
MTC-00008376
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a citizen grateful for innovative and useful products
bringing tax revenue at home and abroad, I hope the settlement
tentatively arrived at regarding Microsoft will be upheld and the
matter finally brought to conclusion so that the time, energy and
resources of Microsoft AND the government can b e more usefully
employed.
There are competitive forces working in the economy and the time
has come for them to be the determinants.
Very truly yours,
Lydia T. Pfund
Highland Beach, Florida
MTC-00008377
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:05pm
Subject: Mircrosoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I urge that steps be taken to ensure that the negotiated
settlement with Microsoft proceed to conclusion without undue delay.
The settlement is the best resolution of the litigation and any
steps to derail the settlement should be strongly resisted.
Neil and Debbie Morgan
MTC-00008378
From: Carole Joy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:38pm
Subject: Lawsuit
I am 100% in favor of microsoft being able to make and keep
control of their own products. I think Microsoft invented it and
should make the profit for it and be able to retain it as their own
product. .... Other companies can make their own products.
Carole Joy
MTC-00008379
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
I AM 100% BEHIND THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT AND WANT THE
GOVERNMENT TO PASS THE LAW AND STOP HARASSING A COMPANY THAT IS THE
VERY BEST AT WHAT IT DOES!
EUGENE T. YOUNG
23 CHAPEL HILL DRIVE
ROCHESTER, NY 14617
MTC-00008380
From: Heidar E-Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 5:58pm
Subject: microsoft litigation
Dear Sirs.
I would like to register my opinion and frustration that there
continues to be delays in reaching a full settlement in the
Microsoft case. It is long overdue that we put this matter behind us
and move on.
Continuous harassment of this company only serves to impede its
progress in giving us better technology and this acts as a drag on
the U.S. economy. So, settle and move on. We have better things to
do than this.
Helgi Heidar
MTC-00008381
From: Keith Steensma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
I am a shareholder of both Microsoft and Compaq stock. And as
such, I should be very interested in seeing Microsoft operate (and
make profits) un-hindered by any barriers. The fact is the what is
good for Microsoft (and the other companies, like Compaq, that rely
on Microsoft) is good for the nation.
The is definitely not how I feel. I was a small businessman
during the late 1980's and all of 1990's and felt the impact that
(the infamous) WalMart had in our community. What was good for
WalMart was not good for me. Eventually, we closed the store because
we couldn't compete. My business was impacted by WalMart, but it was
also impacted by the actions of Microsoft. Our business had
supported Atari, Netscape, and IBM, and depended on the
`alternatives' that these companies offered. Needless to say, as
these companies failed in there quest to be an alternative, our
business suffered. I believe that Microsoft has acted improperly. I
have read all of the documents (concerning this case) that have bee
released by the courts. I was stunned to read some of the actions
that were taken (by Microsoft) to `make sure' a certain company or
product failed. I believe that Microsoft needs to change the way
they do business. And I don't believe that this will happen unless
the company is severely sanctioned and regulated. I believe that the
agreement that the government has reached with Microsoft is a joke
and is an insult to my belief in my government. Please look at all
the aspects of this case and arrive at a more `real' settlement of
this case.
Keith Steensma
Jacksonville, Arkansas
MTC-00008382
From: warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi. I am writing to express my displeasure at the proposed
``settlement'' between the Dept of Justice and Microsoft. Not only
does it NOT halt the illegal, anti-trust activities of Microsoft,
but in some cases actually promotes Microsoft (ie. allowing them to
flood the schools with free software).
Hopefully the unfairness of this proposed settlement will be
recognized and dealt with accordingly by the courts.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my point of view.
--Warren Friedman
Fairfax, California
MTC-00008383
From: miburt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25017]]
Get off of Microsoft's back. You have already spent too much of
the taxpayer's money in trying a bum cause. Quit wasting our money
and let Microsoft continue to give us better products for less money
as they have in the past. Find some more important things to do.
Doris & Burt Shearer
MTC-00008384
From: Michael E. Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Microsoft settlement is reasonable and that
continued litigation serves no purpose except to increase legal fees
and burnish the reputation of political office seekers.
Indeed, although Microsoft may effectively have a monopoly on
certain software products, they have gained this by producing
quality products at a reasonable price to the great benefit of the
general public. I have made it a point to use the software of many
competing companies before migrating to Microsoft products, and
unfortunately found them to be lacking in effectiveness.
Microsoft has succeeded largely because they built a better
mouse. I hate to see competition stifled, but I also hate to see the
government stifle innovation.
Where were all the DoJ lawyers when Kenneth Lay and his team
were taking the public on a very expensive ride with Enron? Maybe if
Bill Gates and company had been as effusive with political donations
as they have been with charitable donations, Microsoft might not
have had to face this purgatory.
Mike Warren
Gainesville, FL
MTC-00008385
From: Joanie Garborg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the court to accept the settlement reached between
Microsoft, the federal government and nine states. I believe that
the settlement is just and fair. This case has dragged on too long
already and this is the best way to resolve it.
Joanie Garborg
MTC-00008386
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I strongly believe the settlement against Micrsoft recently is
just and fair. Let all accept it and get on with our lives
Mr.I.E.Park
2417 Vining St.
Bellingham, Wa.98226
360-734-1589
MTC-00008387
From: Eric Lanser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The anti-trust laws are of dubious constitutionality. They are
more a-kin to a ``government of men'' than to the stated American
ideal of a ``government of laws.'' They do NOT treat all equally
before the law (i.e. the successful). Finally, the laws violate the
rights of the successful in favor of any mistaken and short-sighted
voice of the ``consumer interest.'' The anti-trust laws' dubious
constitutionality is one of the primary reasons why they ultimately
hurt consumers more than help them.
Ignoring the question of the rights to dispose of one's property
in any way one wishes, another issue is at stake as well. The very
existence of Microsoft and would-be corporations like it is greatly
hindered by the presence and enforcement of the anti-trust laws. If
Bill Gates had not ever existed, the world today would literally be
a very different place. I'm not speaking of any sort of ``It's a
Wonderful Life'' scenario here, but one of even greater importance.
One where a single man has affected billions of people in a greatly
positive way. Bill Gates provided the world with a vastly more
efficient and effective platform than any other in existence.
American people, and American corporations responded by purchasing
it in vast numbers. Without Windows, the computer age would have, at
best, been delayed a number of years. Although alternative platforms
do exist, nearly every major company in the United States (and the
world) uses some version of Windows on its machines. An office-place
without computers would seem a strange site today, but it would be
much more common without Bill Gates' actions.
Among the many successes of Windows is its integration of
multiple applications smoothly and effectively. Incorporating
Internet Explorer into windows served as a terrific convenience to
purchasers of windows. It saved consumers not only the money to buy
the program but also the shipping time of some alternative browser
to their house, school, or business.
The entire reason Microsoft is being victimized by the anti-
trust laws is because its business practices have been so
successful, it products so vital, and its impact on America and the
world so great. Microsoft should be held up as a model to emulate
and Bill Gates as a hero and innovator of our times. By punishing
the successful precisely because they have done what they have done
in the most efficient, innovative, and profitable ways is beyond
impractical; it is immoral.
The direct implications of penalizing Microsoft would mean one
of a number of things (or some combination thereof): a. Layoffs at
Microsoft; b. Higher prices for Windows and other software; c. Fewer
innovations in the software field. Any voice of the ``public'' or
``consumer interest'' should not overlook the simple fact that a
hefty fine on Microsoft will NOT come out of Bill
Gates pockets (nor should it), but ultimately out of the pockets
of the ``public'' or consumers themselves. Even if no fine is
involved, losses in profit (not to mention the costs to Microsoft
for defending itself at trial) will have the same affects on prices/
labor/innovation. In the long run, if Microsoft is penalized for its
successful business practices, it will forever be an example to
future would-be innovators. Without Bill Gates and his would-be
equals, no stimulus package in the world would be able to propel
this economy or any other at the rate it has been growing since the
early nineties. Without innovation in the computer field, or any
other, the standard of living of the United States would stagnate,
productivity would cease to rise, and every human being in the
United States would suffer the consequences--from the highest paid
CEO (who would see his portfolio crumble and his own business
stagnate) to every factory worker (who would cease to have increases
in pay do to rises in productivity).
Most of all the consumers would suffer. They would have far
fewer quality products coming to market. The new products that
would, against all odds, come to market would be at higher prices
and/or of lower quality than they would otherwise be. Once again, I
urge any speaker for ``the public good'' or the ``consumer
interest'' to take a look at the ultimate (and even immediate)
consequences of penalizing the successful for doing exactly what
they do best, providing the public with innovations, improvements,
and quality products at low prices. The whole spirit of the United
States was that of a nation in which great minds and average minds
alike could live and think as they pleased--a symbol to the world of
what the human mind and human self-interest could do for man and the
world if he were left free.
MTC-00008388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I urge the court to accept the settlement reached between
Microsoft, the federal government and nine states. I believe that
the settlement is just and fair. This case has dragged on too long
already and this is the best way to resolve it.
Keith Garborg
MTC-00008389
From: Patricia Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems to me that the case against Microsoft has gone on long
enough and that it would in the nation's best interest to finalize
the settlement. With everything that is going on in the world, why
don't we free up the bright minds of our country to focus on
improving all of our lives as I feel Microsoft has done and
continues to do. If the competitors of Microsoft spent as much time
and money on their ideas and products as they are spending on this
long, drawn-out litigation, they would probably be more successful
in the business world.
Pat Andrews
145 Scottsdale Square
Winter Park, FL 32792
Phone: 407-718-5184
Fax: 407-644-9951
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00008390
From: Judy Tallman
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25018]]
Date: 1/3/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Folks,
I strongly believe that the proposed settlement is fair and just
to all parties. I highly recommend that the settlement be approved.
It is time for us to allow Microsoft get back to the business of
developing software. The first judge could not have been computer
literate or he would not have made some of the comments if what was
printed was indeed what was stated. For anyone like myself who has
been using computers since mainframes and 300 baud modems were state
of the art, many of the charges against MS are totally ridiculous.
I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Gates both in his business
practices and in his personal life. I checked the charities that MS
support and they are very thoughtful and oriented towards helping
children and schools especially. To me, this whole fuss seems to be
all about lawyers trying to get more MS money for themselves.
Let's please let MS supply the kids with computers and get on
with business.
Happy Trails,
Judy Tallman
Dancing Horses, Inc.
www.dancinghorses.com
MTC-00008391
From: Bryan DeBois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: Please allow Microsoft to settle with
the United States!! This judicial farce has gone on long enough, and
wasted far too much of the tax-payers' money. It is high time that
the Department of Justice give a vote of confidence for the
consumers and their ability to think for themselves, instead of
allowing large Microsoft competitors to whisper in justices' ears.
We are on the brink of a new year, under a new administration, it is
time to let it go.
Sincerely,
Bryan DeBois
[email protected]
Senior, Computer Science Major
The University of Akron
MTC-00008392
From: Melvin Henderson-Rubio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For the record, I need to state that I am a long-term Microsoft
employee (over 15 yrs). Obviously, I have been aware of the current
case filed by the DOJ and number of states as well as the settlement
reached with DOJ and several states.
It goes without saying that I have never fully grasped the
justification for the case nor similar cases filed earlier along the
same grounds. I am well aware that our competitors have been and
will continue to use the legal system and public option to try and
accomplish what they have failed to in the marketplace, develop and
market some of the best software in the industry.
As taxpayer, not only in my residing state of Washington (which
I'm glad to see our Attorney General opted not to join in on the
case) and as a US tax payer, I fail to understand what the DOJ and
states see as the benefit to consumers and the use tax dollars to
fund such investigation, beyond a reasonable review. What did and
what do these states really think they are doing to assist their
citizens? As a consumer, if I do not want Microsoft products pre-
installed on my system, I can remove them and replace with other
products. Similar to what happens when I purchase a car. If I do not
like the radio I pay purchase one after market and the same goes for
wheels or tries. There is a huge after-market for these items.
Similarly there are options in the high-tech industry, but the vast
majority of consumers are okay with an ``industry standard.''
Currently it's Microsoft, in the early days of the pc, it was Apple,
and someday it will be someone else. If you look at history, first
it was the Chinese, Greeks and Egyptians, then French, Dutch,
Spanish and British who ruled the world. In recent times, the
Russians and now the US. History takes care of things.
As a consumer and watching the growth of the pc industry for
more than 15 years, Microsoft along with industry partners such as:
Intel and major pc companies (including Apple to some degree) have
done more to stimulate the pc industry and economy overall than any
other sequence of innovations in US or for that matter, contemporary
world economy. I equate that Microsoft (along with Intel) has done
for the pc and high tech industry what McDonald's has and continues
to do for the ``fast-food'' industry; Disney for the concept of
amusements and family entrainment; Starbucks for the coffee industry
and CNN for 24 Hour News.
Yes, Microsoft has been extremely aggressive when it comes to
getting it's product into the marketplace, but not any more than a
sports franchise looking to win the Super Bowl or NBA Title. Just
image had the DOJ and states outside of Illinois and/or Texas and
California opted to oppose the Bulls, Cowboys or 49'ers from winning
as many world titles as they have.
It should not be the role of the government to pick and choose
winners and losers, nor overly support the lobbying efforts by
competitors to try and level the marketplace. Over the years
Microsoft has seen numerous opportunities and markets to pursue and
set clear-cut objectives to enter those markets. I do not recall
Microsoft asking the DOJ or various states Attorney Generals to keep
displace or slow-down the efforts of: Lotus (1-2-3) or Word-Perfect
or other industry leaders. Microsoft has not always been successful,
there was Microsoft Bob and the failed merge with Quicken. Numerous
current Microsoft and industry standards took several attempts, such
as: MS-DOS; Microsoft Windows to become industry standards; the
Microsoft Mouse was major undertaking and the Microsoft Office Suite
took years to become the standard.
As a consumer, I can go into any store and with Microsoft
Windows being the world-wide standard; I have 10's of thousands of
applications, games and accessorories to choose from. Prior to
Microsoft becoming the standard (pre-Ms-DOS days), there were no
where near the selection. Each app or game had a few choices,
because developers and distributors did not know or what to risk
developing and distributing for an operating system that might not
be well received. Microsoft has without a doubt created and huge
high-tech industry (again, long with key partners such as Intel) and
stimulated the US economy more than any other company in US history.
It is somewhat ironic that a number, if not most of our
competitors usually solely develop and support their applications to
the Microsoft Windows standard. The vast majority of their
developers use the Microsoft Windows standard, so do their techs
support folks and sales and marketing forces. Without such a
dominate operating system, our competitors would have to decided and
divide their resources into 2-3 different focus areas. The same
applies and more so related to the development of independent
applications and services.
Not agreeing in the first place the lawsuit has merit, I am in
agreement with the proposed settlement. Students and teachers,
especially in lower-income areas will need to make sure they are
prepared and able to compete in the marketplace as well as various
careers. For the foreseeable future, Microsoft products and services
will remain the world-wide industry standard (that is not to say
that some other company will not displace Microsoft).
CC:Melvin Henderson-Rubio
MTC-00008393
From: Johnson, Daniel 1.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I recommend that the Court require in its remedy, in addition to
the stipulations already provided (located at http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/
9549.htm), that: Microsoft be required to include compliance with
relevant industry-standard, publicly available interconnectivity
protocols and file formats in all software products, and provide
these as the installed defaults. This does not forbid Microsoft from
offering enhanced protocols as well, as options, but to foster
competition, Microsoft must be required to make publicly available
all technical details of ``enhanced'' or customized formats and
protocols so that competitors can ensure interconnectivity.
Microsoft be required to demonstrate compatibility of OS and
software with these standards. Microsoft must not ``extend'' any
independent formats, protocols or standards unilaterally. Microsoft
be not permitted to engage in deceptive marketing practices
misrepresenting the strengths of MS software and OS's and the
weakness of competitors'.
Industry groups exist for many standards; these tend to be
dominated by leading vendors. With regard to this Action, it is
important that Microsoft and its client firms not be permitted to
dominate standards groups' membership for a period of years.
Microsoft should be required, for a period of several years, to seek
extensions of these standards only as part of industry consortia and
that it and its client firms are forbidden dominate numerically.
[[Page 25019]]
I understand that these may seem to be too broad; it is not, for
all ``connectivity technology is ``middleware.'' Details and
rationale for why this action is appropriate to this case follow
below. This recommendation is essentially an enhancement of Section
III. E.
Respondent:
Daniel L. Johnson, MD
Red Cedar Clinic, Ltd.
Mayo Health System
Menomonie, WI 54751
[email protected]
Respondent's background:
Profession: general internal medicine since 1978 Experience
relative to this case: I've been a user of microcomputers since
1980; an ``occasional'' amateur software developer of word
processing software 1982-1988; I have monitored the microcomputer
and medical software arenas, as a consumer and an interested
spectator, since 1983. I have experience with Apple computers and
IBM PC's, and have used all versions of MS-DOS or PC-DOS through PC-
DOS 7.0, Windows 3.10 through Windows XP, and Linux OS from Red Hat
5.0 through 7.2 (the current version). I am a knowledgeable non-
professional with no vocational stake in software or operating
systems.
Limitations:
I do not have the time to document the factual basis for the
observations and conclusions I offer below, due to the demanding
time constraints of my job as a physician and due to other personal
commitments. I regret this, and would simply point out that this
factual basis has been well documented within industry publications
(often indirectly, however) and on the internet. None of my
judgments are based on private information except perhaps some of my
knowledge about excess costs to the health care industry due to the
effects of Microsoft's monopoly on desktop operating systems and
software.
Reason for responding:
I am concerned about the continued non-competitive situation in
the microcomputer software industry because I have observed that
Microsoft has used its market and public relations power
destructively: to stifle competitive innovation, to indirectly
hinder production and sales of needed custom-built software, to
destroy, in several ways, many small companies whose expertise and
software tools have not been replaced; the result has been to place
inefficiency burdens on consumer businesses generally.
It places inefficiency burdens on consumer businesses in two
ways: First, the severe security flaws in Windows operating systems
and Microsoft's Outlook and Word software (which also have monopoly
strength in the their markets) have slowed operation of the
Internet, cause repeated system crashes that harm companies'
businesses, and expose confidential personal data via software
cracking.
Second, Microsoft is using its monopoly position to raise
license fees and restrict license terms in ways that create harmful
fiscal burdens on companies dependent on their OS and applications,
burdens that would not exist if there were actually competition.
This is creating financial inefficiency in the business sector
generally, and in health care in particular--because we are finding
that software vendors, whose software has run well on non Microsoft
platforms, are wholesale porting this software to Windows out of
fear of being left outside the monopoly, resulting in uncontrollable
increases in license fees and in hardware costs to users. It is
useful to contrast Microsoft's use of its monopoly markets and
Intel's. Intel also enjoys monopoly power, but it has not been able
prevent competition: first Cyrix and now AMID have been able to
provide satisfactory alternatives to Intel (although some would
argue that Intel as done its best to destroy both competitors, with
significant although incomplete success).
The COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT says: ``On May 18, 1998, the
United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that
Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft''), the world's largest supplier
of computer software for personal computers, restrained competition
in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ?? 1-
2..... The United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, which found that Microsoft violated both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act .... The Proposed Final Judgment will provide a
prompt, certain and effective remedy for consumers by imposing
injunctive relief to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of the
violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld by the
Court of Appeals and restore competitive conditions to the market.''
I am convinced, based on my extended observation of the computer
industry in this country, that the proposed Final Judgment will NOT
provide a remedy that is effective, certain or prompt in restoring
competition to the markets in which Microsoft has a monopoly
position because it does not adequately take into account the
manifold and pervasive means that have been used by Microsoft to
achieve and maintain its monopoly position.
Rationale:
First, the remedies only address middleware (because the
Complaint addresses middleware). Unfortunately for prospect of a
remedy that is either ``certain'' or ``effective'' in restoring
competition to the desktop computer industry, middleware is only a
small though important factor. It will not be possible to restore
competition by addressing middleware alone. Microsoft has
successfully created for itself monopoly positions in operating
systems for pc's email programs word processing programs spreadsheet
programs browsers (``middleware'') other less ``significant'' market
areas By ``monopoly position'' I mean that potential competitors can
survive only by offering software that mimics the operations and
functionality of Microsoft software; Microsoft continually changes
their software's specifications and file formats to prevent this,
and to make their own earlier versions incompatible with files
created by new versions, forcing users to abandon the software both
of competitors and of Microsoft in order to be able to interchange
documents efficiently.
Microsoft does not have monopoly positions in server operating
systems database software programming languages mail service
internet protocols file/directory management customized software
This does not obviate Microsoft's monopoly position in all the other
software areas that it already dominates.
Microsoft understands that the most important key to complete
dominance of the software industry is by controlling
``connectivity''--sharing of documents, images, email, data, and
directories. I will not expand this response with details; I will
simply say that Microsoft is attempting to gain control of every
area that it does not now dominate; the only area that seems
relatively safe from monopolistic control right now is large
databases. In every other area Microsoft has in place either
technological programs or marketing programs that have some
reasonable likelihood of controlling markets or technology or both.
As I have observed the evolution of the desktop-computer market
during the last 21 years, it has been rare for Microsoft to gain
competitive advantage by itself producing a functionally or
technically superior product. MS-DOS was a badly designed operating
system that happened to enjoy the imprimatur of IBM and the
advantage of open computer architecture. Microsoft purchased the
leading email software vendor; it waited for the word processing
market to mature, then imitated the best of what was available from
multiple competitors, and made Word the ``best'' by preventing
competitors from learning how to make their own software work well
with upcoming versions of Microsoft operating systems until
Microsoft had completed its own work on Word, guaranteeing that the
competition would always be ``behind'' on the dominant OS. It did
the same thing with Excel, its spreadsheet program.
It was not able to do this with Netscape, and so it behaved in a
variety of destructive ways that are well documented in the trial
proceedings. In general, I can identify four ways in which Microsoft
has stifled competition: by purchasing its competition by inviting
its competition to consider being purchased, examining their
software technically, and then duplicating their software
engineering while abandoning the proposed acquisition on one or
another technicality. through a consistent pattern, since about
1990, of false and misleading advertising that inflates falsely the
strengths of Microsoft software and denying its faults or
limitations while falsely slandering the strengths of competitive
versions and emphasizing their faults and limitations. By claiming
to adopt industry standards when offering software for which
``connectivity'' is important, but actually departing from those
standards in the implementation, meaning that the output of these
programs is not actually ``portable'' or exchangeable. (By
``actually'' I mean that it is not feasible within pragmatic
limitations of time, effort, and money, not that it is conceptually
impossible.)
I may be argued that these actions of Microsoft have not always
been successful, but these instances of failure do not imply that
Microsoft has failed to leverage their
[[Page 25020]]
monopoly position; moreover, it has attempted to do so in every
conceivable way. The effects of this monopoly, as I've noted above,
are financial inefficiency and operational inefficiency. Microsoft
is now using its monopoly position to squeeze its business licensees
(users) financially by raising license fees, requiring software
upgrades, limiting user rights and otherwise restricting licenses.
In general, it is true that Microsoft operating systems, in
comparison to other operating systems (Unix versions, Linux, 0S/2,
Macintosh, BeOS) are more prone to crashes, are more susceptible to
security breakdowns and breaches, and do not run as efficiently on
hardware (computers), entailing financial inefficiency for users who
must purchase additional servers and spend more money on energy. My
understanding is that in general, Microsoft operating systems
require about twice the expenditure for electricity and for
computers as alternatives. In addition, software vendors are
burdened with the inefficiency of having to convert software to
Windows because of the real threat to their businesses from not
having Windows versions.
Microsoft will argue that to restrain its practices is to stifle
technological improvement. It will point to specific instances in
which its software performs better than other choices. But the
existence of such specific instances of superiority does not imply
that its software is generally superior in performance or in design;
furthermore, even if this were true, Microsoft's practices
effectively destroy competition and enhance its monopoly powers;
this defect is more important to efficient commerce than the
relatively small technical superiorities it points to. Restoration
of competition.
In my judgment it will not be possible, by any fiat a court is
capable of issuing, to ``promptly'' restore competition to the
market, as the Competitive Impact Statement proposes. At most, the
court may be able to hinder Microsoft's destructive practices
sufficiently to permit genuine competition to emerge by establishing
a competitive environment. Because the future of computing lies in
interconnectivity of machines and exchange of data and
communications, the only way to free our commercial society from
monopolistic domination by Microsoft or any similar entity is to
mandate that in all its operating systems and software applications,
Microsoft supply, as defaults, file formats, directory handling,
encryption methods, data-handling protocols, and other technology
important in interconnectivity that are publicly available and
conform to consensus industry standards.
Conclusion (reprise): Thus I am recommending that the court
require, in its remedy, that: Microsoft be required to include
compliance with relevant industry-standard, publicly available
interconnectivity protocols and file formats with all software, and
provide these as the installed defaults. This does not forbid
Microsoft from offering enhanced protocols as well, as options, but
to foster competition, Microsoft must be required to make publicly
available all technical details of ``enhanced'' or customized
formats and protocols so that competitors can ensure
interconnectivity.
Microsoft be required to demonstrate compatibility of OS and
software with these standards.
Microsoft be not permitted to ``extend'' any independent
formats, protocols or standards unilaterally. Microsoft be not
permitted to engage in deceptive marketing practices misrepresenting
the strengths of MS software and OS's and the weakness of
competitors' Industry groups exist for many standards; these tend to
be dominated by leading vendors. With regard to this Action, it is
important that Microsoft and its client firms not be permitted to
dominate standards groups' membership for a period of years.
Microsoft be required, for a period of several years, to seek
extensions of these standards only as part of industry consortia and
that it and its client firms are forbidden dominate numerically.
MTC-00008394
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:20pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
As a consumer please note that i agree that a settlement in the
Microsoft case is good for both the consumer, the industry and the
American economy.
Please get on with it.
Thank you
Meredith St Pierre
Boca Raton, Fl
MTC-00008396
From: Billie R Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:27pm
Subject:
It is beyond my understanding why the government wants to waste
the money It is beyond my understanding why the government wants to
waste the money of the tax payer to try to destroy Microsoft through
senseless litigation when Microsoft has done so much for the economy
of the United States by creating jobs.
Billie Cox
MTC-00008397
From: Stefan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:29pm
Subject: Thoughts on MS settlement
Dear sir or madam:
I am a U.S. Citizen, a long-time computer user and am appalled
by the Department of Justice1s proposal to give Microsoft a monopoly
in education by allowing them to donate Windows-based computers, the
bane of computing, to poorly-funded schools in the country. This
proposal is a shame and travesty of justice. Microsoft has acted
illegally time and again, thus, it clearly is not just nor in the
public1s best interest to reward their illegal and predatory
behavior with such a largess. While I am not an Apple Computer stock
holder, I favor the counter proposal submitted to the Department of
Justice by Apple's CEO Mr. Steven Jobs.
Sincerely,
Stefan Ingannamorte
Apopka, FL
MTC-00008398
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please be advised that I believe that the settlement agreed to
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft is fair and
reasonable to the consumer and is in the public interest.
It is time for everyone involved to get on with being concerned
about innovation, creativity, and doing constructive things to help
stimulate the economy. It is necessary for this matter to be
resolved for the benefit of the consumer, Microsoft's stockholders,
and for all the companies that do business with Microsoft Needless
to say, I encourage the Court to approve the settlement agreed to
between Microsoft, the nine states, and the Department of Justice.
Jerome N. Weinberg
MTC-00008399
From: Max Burford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft case
It's my feeling that the Microsoft case ruling by the court of
appeals should be final.
Quite dragging it out.
Max O. Burford
[email protected]
MTC-00008400
From: Geo and Steven Mayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The government should have stayed out of this in the first
place. Microsoft should be able to do business without being
manacled by the government.
George Mayes
[email protected]
MTC-00008401
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the proposed government settlement with
Microsoft which I think is fair to all concerned. Microsoft is a
significant investment in my personal retirement fund which I will
need to supplement social security when I retire in
March, 2003.
Rees Himes
31 Sylvan Road North
Westport, CT 06880
MTC-00008402
From: Steve (038) Pam Lock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies/Gentlemen:
We are extremely hopeful and pleased that the Microsoft case may
finally be settled. We feel very strongly that it is in the best
interest of both the economy and the country--especially in light of
recent events--that this settlement proceed to completion.
In this critical time we feel the DOJ should turn its attention
and spend its taxpayer funds on the security of this country. We
feel
[[Page 25021]]
spending any more of tax payers money or DOJ time and energy on this
case would not bring any further benefit to us the consumer or to
our country.
Thank you for your time in reading this and we continue to be
hopeful that this matter will finally come to a close.
Sincerely,
Steven and Pamela Lock
1580 SE Pioneer Way
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
MTC-00008403
From: Ying, Xingren
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the case! U.S. economy and HiTech cannot afford
this endless lawsuit. Let's compete in the market not in the court.
Even Microsoft competitors can kill MS in the court. But the
consumer will be the loser also. We will pay the higher price to buy
the software and the leadership of software industry will transfer
to other country.
So, please settle. We just want Microsoft behave better, not to
kill it.
Xingren
MTC-00008404
From: Chance Yohman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is it unjust for a company to share a large sector of a market?
This is one of the questions before the United States Department of
Justice right now concerning Microsoft and the software market. If
Microsoft does a good job at what it does, then undoubtedly it will
gain a large share of the market just like it has. Its time to end
this attack fueled by petty jealousies of other software competitors
and our federal government's fear of letting individuals do their
own business. Let Microsoft be and let the market dictate who comes
out on top. One of the many citizens who this country belongs to
rightfully,
Chance E. Yohman
East Waterboro, Maine
THE GEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH
MTC-00008405
From: james k davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To all those concerned:
It is my hope that the settlement, which has been reached in the
issue of the Department of Justice (and some state suits) and
Microsoft, will be found by the District Court to be fair, complete
and comprehensive. From my perspective, that of a consumer who is
dependent on the trouble free, low maintenance, smooth cross-
application performance of my operating system (Windows) for a
business software function free of problems, it is not realistic to
deny Windows users this settlement and move on in the world of
software development and innovation. Please do not be put off by my
use of the word ``innovation.'' It is the most descriptive and
exciting word in the world of technological development.
I am weary of the denial of the existence of other software
operating systems, systems which have developed contemporaneously
with Windows, with varying levels of success--DOS (which IBM decided
they didn't want), IBM's OS2 (a dreadful, cumbersome, and generally
non-performing system), Apple's MacIntosh (priced out of my market--
by Apple, not Microsoft), Unix (too expensive and too technical as
it was developed for the scientific and engineering markets of which
most of us are not members) and Linux (until very recently not
performing in the cross-application market (through no fault of
Microsoft's) most users require and still not 'up to snuff' for this
user.
Until there is something better than Microsoft's Windows--and
it's browser--I suggest we stop punishing Microsoft for being the
best.
Elizabeth B. Davies
MTC-00008406
From: DwightNancy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
We want you to complete the Microsoft Settlement. The agreement
is too stringent in our view, but the US Govt has spent entirely too
much time and money on this inquisition already. There are many more
pressing matters needing our tax dollars. Please do not allow the
opponents of the settlement drag this out any longer.
We have always felt that Microsoft has served our needs properly
and have never felt used or abused.
Thank you.
Dwight and Nancy James
10124 Sharon Spring Dr
Fredericksburg, VA 22408
(540) 371-4625
cc: Congressman Frank Wolf
Senators John Warner and George Allen
MTC-00008407
From: Chris Aveni
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
It is of my opinion, and many other Americans of sound mind that
Microsoft has suffered ridiculous penalties as a result of over
zealous attorneys and sour competitors. Please name me one other
company in this country that exports as much as Microsoft in which
keeps our trade deficit from soaring. Without Microsoft in our
economy, we would not only have a much more devastating trade
deficit, but an economy that would be much worse off than it is
today. Also keep in mind that Microsoft has brought technology allot
further than any other company has over the years. Microsoft did try
to stifle competition, and they should be prevented from doing so in
the future, but it is know time to get off their backs and all get
back to business. The proposed settlement is overly far to the
competition.
Christopher J. Aveni
Technical Analyst
AremisSoft Corporation, Manufacturing Division
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.aremissoft.com/
MTC-00008408
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir--
Just a quick note to let you hear my opinion on the subject
settlement (Tunney Act). I would really like to see littigation
ended immediately. I believe the settlement is fair as is and
further fighting in the courts will do nothing for me as consumer
and everything to further fatten the pockets of lawyers and a few
wealthy plaintiffs. I do not wish to see my tax dollars wasted in
further litigation against Microsoft and request that DOJ move to
accept the settlement as it stands. Thank you.
Chris Carbott
11508 Boathouse CT
Bowie, MD 20720
301-805-6987
MTC-00008409
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer and a stock owner, I am satisfied with the
settlement which has been reached.
MTC-00008410
From: Larry Steinbecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I would like to take this opportunity to speak forcefully in
favor of Microsoft regarding the DOJ's legal actions against them.
Unlike the monopoly previously held by AT & T, and currently held by
the U.S. Post Office, Microsoft did not gain their dominant position
by outlawing competitors; they outperformed them, thus *earning* a
dominant position.
I speak directly from experience as the owner of a computer
software firm when I say that Microsoft has done this country a
great service in delivering a single dominant operating system.
Since my company only has to write software for a single
environment, it is able to deliver higher quality products and offer
lower prices than if it had to write software for numerous,
incompatible environments. Our 2,000+ customers are the direct
beneficiaries of this fact to the tune of tens if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars. This same fact holds true for every producer
of software that runs on Microsoft platforms, multiplied by each of
their respective customer bases.
Further, every one of Microsoft's customers, by having free
access to a web browser, was measurably and positively impacted by
the fact they did not have to spend an additional $30--$100 in order
to browse the web. True, Netscape was hurt by this action, but the
benefit to the country as a whole was immense. Every Microsoft
customer saved $30 to $100 by not having to purchase a separate
browser. Each of these millions of users were then able to save that
[[Page 25022]]
money, or use it to purchase other goods or services that they would
not have otherwise bought.
Remarkably, Microsoft has been painted as the ``bad guy'' for
making business more difficult for their competitors. Never mind the
fact that every action taken by every business in every field is
done precisely to benefit their own company at the expense of their
competitors. Every advertisement, feature, and service provided by a
company negatively affects their competitors' ability to compete
with them. And yet we are to believe that Microsoft is evil and
conniving for not wishing to bestow bounty upon its competitors, nor
make life easy for them.
The DOJ's actions thus far have further cost the economy untold
billions. It is not a coincidence that the stock market plunge began
precisely on the day that the judgment was announced against
Microsoft. Since that time, the stock market has lost nearly $1
trillion in value as investors became worried that the tech sector,
our most productive market segment, was going to come under
persecution and micromanagement by U.S. Government. The DOJ's
actions have not just eviscerated Microsoft's value, but the
retirement and savings accounts of countless citizens who gladly
owned Microsoft and other tech stocks.
It should be obvious to anyone of even limited intellectual
resources that Microsoft, while having a dominant position, can only
do so if they continue to outperform their competitors. Microsoft
has stumbled in particular areas, such as personal finance software,
on-line services and even server operating systems. In every case
the market has gone to their competitors (Quicken, American On-Line
and Linux) quickly, efficiently, and without government
intervention. This same migration will happen if Microsoft ceases to
offer the best operating system at the best price.
Microsoft's envious competitors are largely driving this case.
They are seeking to gain in court that which they could not achieve
in the marketplace. But it is time for the DOJ to stop acting as the
special-interest arm of the government for these competitors;
instead the DOJ should act in the interest of the countless citizens
benefited directly and indirectly by use of Microsoft's products and
ownership of Microsoft's stock. I strongly urge you to settle this
case with the least possible damage to Microsoft, and to let
America's most productive company alone in the future, to benefit of
our country.
Sincerely,
Larry Steinbecker
MTC-00008411
From: James F. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is good for the consumer, the American
economy and the public interest. I urge you to settle this case
immediately and not let a few dissidents continue to block a
reasonable settlement.
Sincerely
James F. Miller
MTC-00008412
From: Abe Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
We are in favor of the present settlement. We think continuing
the ligitation should be stopped.
Abe Shapiro
MTC-00008413
From: Robert Feeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:05pm
Subject: Settlement Suit
Dear DOJ,
Microsoft Corporation like yourselves and and me are still
evolving. This evolving in a harsh and competitive electronic
universe has shown us the best and the worst of Microsoft. Still, I
believe it is in our best interest to leave MSFT intact and not
break up the company.
Sincerely,
Robert Feeney
707-863-8898
707-863-8899 fax
707-491-0737 pager
[email protected] .... [email protected]
MTC-00008414
From: Lonnie Malaska MIS CD(038)C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With respect to a document,
re: ``Utah Attorney General is pursuing harsher punishment...''
And, a following response,
re:``The Judge in the Microsoft case ... will decide whether
additional (or different) remedies are appropriate...''
As an Systems Administrator working with microsoft products has
been both, positive and negative. But, the Antitrust Case needs to
be resolved. I have personally noted that Microsoft is taking over
other software vendors ideas and thus their product, due to the
`ownership of the only viable computer OS on the market to-day'.
Other vendors can't possibly compete with such a giant, I think
our
Fore Fathers addressed this issue.
Lonnie Malaska
1795 E. South campus Dr.
Salt Lake City, ut 84112Lonnie Malaska
Campus Design
University of Utah
[email protected]
ph: 801-581-3136
fax: 581 6081
MTC-00008415
From: Warren Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As a citizen, a Microsoft shareholder and a retired engineer of
AT&T, I hope you can come to a positive solution for Microsoft in
the ongoing litigation. I think that Microsoft has been the most
progressive software provider, a leading worldwide organization. I
feel that we will see great progress for the United States computer
and communication fields that will surpass whatever we have seen up
to now. Please keep Microsoft's software leadership intact.
Warren L. Hoffman
MTC-00008416
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although I think Microsoft does have dirty hands in this affair,
the settlement they have proposed seems fair to all parties
concerned. It is in the interest of our economy to finalize this
mess and get on with business. This is a very fast changing industry
and their competitors who are spending so much to fight them would
do better by putting their money where it could be used to innovate!
There are still many open avenues to explore!
Thank you for your time!
Sally McQueen
MTC-00008417
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is fair & some of the States involved
also agree, it seems foolish for States that don't want to settle to
hold out. It's been a couple of years already-enough is enough!!!
I think M/S did great things for the average Joe with home
computers & really don't see how they forced anything on people that
didn't want various programs.
I am 79 yrs. old, always thought I was of average intelligence
until I got a computer about 6 yrs. ago ( I never cursed or talked
to myself before that ). I just wish I was 70 yrs. younger as my
grand-kids (all under 18 ) really catch on compared to people my
age.
Thanks for letting me spout off.
Fred Murrell
K7RDN (HAM RADIO CALL)
MTC-00008419
From: Sid Ghosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, Justice Dept. lawsuit against ha very little
merit. Microsoft indulged in the same business practice as any other
reputable viable business enterprise would do. Just that Microsoft
became successful- may be very successful.
I think DOJ should reach a legal settlement with Microsoft and
move ahead, without further punishing a very innovative US
Corporation.
Sid Ghosh
MTC-00008420
From: Auguste Schwab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Gentlemen/Mesdames.........
I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is
fair and should be approved.
It is important to realize how much Microsoft has done for the
technology sector not to mention what they have done for the average
American citizen. Without them, we would be years behind and prices
for hardware and software would be far higher than they are today.
Microsoft has made us
[[Page 25023]]
the world leaders in the field. Everyone else had the opportunity--
but Microsoft did it. Were they aggressive? Yes, but it served us
all well. A shrinking violet in this industry does not do us any
good.
A billion dollars worth of hardware and software for children
would be a godsend and would provide them with knowledge they can
put to good use in their adult years. It will help the economy and
the reputation of the United States immensely in the long run.
Do not be misled by special interest groups which object to this
settlement for their own benefit.
Sincerely,
Auguste Schwab
6281 Evian Place
Boynton Beach FL 33437
MTC-00008421
From: (00B0)(FFFF)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen/Madam
Let us not derail an already fragile economy. History does
repeat itself as
George Bush Sr. found out abruptly-ITS ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY,
stupid! See, I softened my stance at the end of the statement..Keep
those middle class jobs fluorishing and good things will happen...
Dave Mckay
MTC-00008422
From: Paul DeMar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think the proposed settlement would be fair to all parties
involved. Its time to settle the case and move on.
Sincerely
Paul DeMar
MTC-00008423
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for
them, the industry and the American economy.
MTC-00008424
From: Joe Doyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:18pm
Subject: Settlement
I am all for the Microsoft settlement.
Joseph J. Doyle
MTC-00008425
From: LELAND ERICKSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Just settle this case now as is-----don't waste any more time
and money'
MTC-00008426
From: JAMES .F. OVERSTREET
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I THINK THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT IS A FAIR
SETTLEMENT AND IS CERTAINLY IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AND IS
CERTAINLY IN MY INTEREST. WHILE I AM A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES SPEAK FOR ME, BUT FOR
SOME SPECIAL INTERESTS, WHICH ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING THE
GOVERNMENT DO FOR THEM WHAT THE MARKET HAS NOT.
ESPECIALLY IN THESE TROUBLED ECONOMIC TIMES IT IS TIME TO REMOVE
THE SCHAKLES THAT HAVE SLOWED MICROSOFT DOWN. GET THIS THING SETTLED
ALREADY!!!
SINCERELY:
JAMES F. OVERSTREET
MTC-00008427
From: Paul Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
As a concerned citizen, I would like to express my opinion that
the settlement reached between the DOJ/9 States and Microsoft is
fair and should be accepted.
This entire Microsoft litigation is a terrible waste of
taxpayers money. It should come to a end as soon a possible. There
are a lot more pressing issues we have today.
Thank you for accepting my opinion in this matter.
Paul J. Allen
17000 Red Bird Road
Winter Garden, FL 34787
407-656-0934
[email protected]
MTC-00008428
From: Norman Martinusen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This matter should be settled promptly. The settlement others
accepted was tough but fair to all concerned; and should be accepted
by the other parties which have not yet settled.
N.J. Martinusen
MTC-00008430
From: Daniel Bontz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is time to settle this issue and stop spending the
tax payer's money. I am currently living in Florida and do not
understand what Florida is not agreeing to the Government offer.
I believe it the offer is a good offer and the matter should be
settled now.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Daniel L. Bontz
MTC-00008431
From: John Moore
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to comment upon the proposed settlement between the
United States Department of Justice and Microsoft. Since the company
has been found both to be a monopoly and to be misusing the power
inherent in that position, it would seem that any final result of
the public's money and effort spent reaching this point should
accomplish three things at a minimum: halting the illegal conduct of
the company, promoting and restoring competition in the industry,
and depriving the company of the gains it has accrued through its
illegal conduct.
The proposed settlement fails to accomplish any one of these
three goals. In addition, the Court is aware that the original suit
arises because of a difference of opinion regarding the effect of an
earlier consent order. The wording of the proposed settlement
appears vague to this software engineer. Even one unschooled in the
law can spot huge holes which would permit Microsoft to evade the
apparent intent of the document. From past behavior, this would
likely lead to continued illegal activity. As an example, the
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to define the ``Windows
Operating System.'' This means that it will be unfettered from
employing the method of ``bundling'' additional functionality into
the OS to attack future competition, just as it has attacked
Netscape, Real Media, Apple Computers' QuickTime, and a near-endless
list of others.
There is no economic incentive for a software company to expend
the research and development time necessary to create a new
application if its functionality can be bundled into Microsoft's
definition of the ``Windows Operating System.'' At the trial,
Microsoft did not contest that it could define the operating system
to include a ham sandwich if it desired. This is not appropriate and
needs remedy.
The government's proposed agreement does provide that Microsoft
cannot penalize some manufacturers if they offer to sell the
application of a competitor. Unfortunately, it does permit Microsoft
to offer inducements to a manufacturer to exclude competitors'
products. It seems that under the proposed settlement, it would be
illegal for Microsoft to--as an example--sell Windows to a
manufacturer for $30 per PC if it didn't use competing software, but
charge $100 if the manufacturer included competitors' products. On
the other hand, nothing in the proposed agreement would seem to stop
Microsoft from charging everyone $100 for Windows, but offering a
$70 inducement if no competitor's products were used by the
manufacturer. To someone who is not a legal scholar, this appears to
be the same thing. It would undoubtedly have the same result--and
would not restore competition.
A just settlement would not only prohibit penalties imposed by
Microsoft to stop others' pro-competitive activities, but also
prohibit it from offering any inducements which lead to the same
result: exclusion of competition from other software companies. As a
professional software engineer, I can assure you that no settlement
will truly promote competition unless it fully addresses what are
known in the field as Application Programming Interfaces (most
frequently abbreviated ``API's''). In the past, Microsoft has used
its control over operating system
[[Page 25024]]
API's to extend its monopoly. These APIs are not engraved in stone;
they change. In the past, they have been deliberately changed by
Microsoft to hamper other companies. Some of them were not even
disclosed publicly until experts found that Microsoft applications
were using ``secret'' OS calls to accomplish results that were
otherwise impossible.
Likewise, I see nothing in the proposed settlement which will
limit Microsoft's typical philosophy of ``embrace and extend.'' This
exercise of power, only possible to a monopoly, allows Microsoft to
``embrace'' an open and publicly-defined internet protocol and
``extend'' it--adding functionality that makes it work properly only
with Windows clients. To allow for competition to exist, a
Monopolist Microsoft should have to fully disclose all protocols and
protocol changes to foster interoperability.
The proposed settlement will accomplish nearly nothing with
regard to API's and protocols. Full disclosure is not mandated, and
Microsoft will see any vagueness in a light that serves the
company's interest. This is a highly technical area, but a solution
is available and workable. No API is placed into the Windows
Operating System without a purpose. There are documents inside
Microsoft that detail what the API is supposed to do, and how it is
to be used by programmers. To achieve full disclosure, all that need
be done is to publish this information publicly--perhaps on the
internet. API disclosure should not be limited to the Windows
Operating System, but should also include Microsoft Office. Although
this suite enjoys over ninety-five percent market share, it has not
been addressed in the proposed settlement. This will allow Microsoft
to evade the settlement's rules by simply moving functionality from
Windows to Office, or offering special terms for Office that would
not be allowed with Windows.
If an API should change during the development process, all the
company should have to do is post the details of the change within a
reasonable number of days. It would be possible to completely
automate the process so that when details of the changes are placed
in the proper electronic ``folder'' for internal sharing among
developers those changes would instantly disseminate to the Web.
This will not require any access to any part of the Windows source
code, but it will level the development ``playing field.''
Another element of the proposed settlement is allowing Microsoft
to retain the gains it has obtained through its browser
monopolization. As a warning against future misconduct, I feel a
just settlement would require full source-code disclosure of
Internet Explorer. Since the PC interface seems to be migrating from
the desktop to the Web browser, failure to do this will simply allow
Microsoft to continue to do with Internet Explorer what it cannot do
with Windows itself.
I will close by bringing up a point which worries me greatly.
The original decree contained a prohibition against Microsoft from
taking knowing action to disable or adversely affect the operation
of competing application products. This seems to have totally
vanished from the proposed settlement. Microsoft has done this sort
of thing many times in the past. Unless this anti-competitive
behavior is addressed by the Court, I fear this business practice
will continue. Indeed, having gone to trial and been convicted, I
feel that the proposed final settlement is nothing less than an
invitation to continue ``business as usual.'' It fails to provide
even a meaningful penalty for failure to comply. The only penalty I
see is an extension of the term for two more years.
Lacking any further penalties, why would Microsoft even care
whether it chose to ignore these so-called ``restrictions'' for five
years or seven?
I urge the Court to reject the proposed final settlement.
John Moore
1970 Fisher Trail, NE
Atlanta, GA 30345
MTC-00008432
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement.
As a consumer I feel that Microsoft's products have made my life
easier. I have felt from the beginning that this suit is an attempt
by Microsoft's competitors to use the DOJ to ``get back'' at
Microsoft. The DOJ under Janet Reno, allowed itself to be
manipulated into prosecuting this case. Thankfully, the DOJ under
Mr. Ashcroft is not buying into this farce. The States Attorneys
Generals who continue to block a settlement seem to be doing so to
grab headlines. If I lived in one of these states I'd make it a
point to vote them out.
MTC-00008433
From: Raymond Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in support of Microsoft.
Those people trying to block the settlement are just after the
money, PLAIN and SIMPLE. Its not about the consumer, its about
money.
Raymond Browning
MTC-00008434
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Consumer, Taxpayer and Shareholder I am opposed to any
further litigation regarding Microsoft, it seems to me that we are
penalizing a company who has developed the competitive edge in its
industry and the competition is crying wolf. I would think that
enough resources have been spent on both sides to move this
litigation alone to closure, for the benefit of the consumer and the
taxpayer.
MTC-00008435
From: Aila M. Horan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
It's time to get this whole politically inspired, Clinton-
initiated Microsoft travesty over with. Take the settlement and get
busy on more important matters.
Richard F. Horan
9442 Clocktower Lane
Columbia, MD 21046-1817
MTC-00008436
From: jrod(a)mindsping.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mam/Sir,
As a graphics designer, I make my living using computers.
Therefore the issue before us affects me in a uniquely personal way.
The recent decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to allow
Microsoft to remain intact even after a Federal judge ruled that
they were indeed a monopoly and guilty of anti-competitive practices
boggles my mind. This decision confirms to Microsoft that they are
totally free and able to take up the whole personal and business
computer market without anyone even lifting a finger in opposition.
First it was Netscape and other smaller computer companies/makers.
Who is going to be next? Are they going to destroy LINUX and the GNU
free software movement because it's such a thorn in their side?
Current memos floating around Microsoft that I have read confirm
that Microsoft is getting ready to wage war on LINUX. Does everybody
have to be running Microsoft products and pay them accordingly for
that company to be satisfied? It seems that is so.
Frankly, enough is enough. I refuse to stand by and allow a
large conglomerate of a corporation like Microsoft to exclusively
engulf the computer market and destroy the freedom of choice that I
have today. The freedom I have to buy and purchase my own software
(Microsoft's .NET strategy is trying to change all that with web
based ``subscription'' fees). The freedom I have to switch out
components of my machine without having to report them to big
brother (the new windows activation features in XP become void if I
change a certain number of hardware components). Microsoft does not
care about my freedoms as a computer user. They only care about my
pocket book. If we just stand by and watch, they will take over
every gate to the internet and computing world, and then set up a
toll booth and charge us fees for use.
So I emplore you to please not back down to the Redmond giant in
a feeble settlement. To Microsoft, money is nothing. Charging them
with a fine for their corrupt practices and nothing more allows them
to continue in their march toward total domination of the computing
world without any resistance. Stand by your decision to not approve
the DOJ's decision, and please fight for a win that would allow us
as citizens and computer users to remain free in our choice of what
we can and choose to do with our computers. Thank you for your time.
Jason Rodriguez
Graphics Artist/Designer
797 Whitehurst Landing
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
MTC-00008437
From: bgates
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25025]]
Date: 1/3/02 7:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
We never felt there was any crime committed by Microsoft in the
first place! What did they not want to do? They didn't want to share
their system & their knowledge with their competitors???? That was
the big criminal conspiracy??? Yes, they are an extremely large
company; yes, all of their systems intermingle & co-mingle
beautifully. Should Microsoft have stopped innovating & subsequently
stopped growing?
The other companies which try to keep Microsoft in the courts
all the time would be better off if they spent their time trying to
develop some new & innovative systems & playing the game fairly. We
have never heard of any company that gives other companies the
secrets of their business practices & allows them access to their
innovative methods which (sad to say) earn money for THEM, and
lessen the profits of their competitors, HAVE YOU? AND--We still
don't understand how the states got involved and were even given
monetary settlements for their supposed abuse at the hands of
Microsoft. We hope the settlement with the 9 states ends this case.
There has been an exorbitant amount of money spent on this case &
the time expended by high paid, valuable employees of the Justice
Department could be better spent bringing to justice REAL CRIMINALS
such as terrorists, murderers, rapists, gangsters, robbers, etc,
etc, etc. PLEASE CLOSE THE CASE!!!
BILLY & ELIZABETH GATES
MTC-00008438
From: Ron Sadler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Its enough!! Lets get our economy moving again. This has had a
very negative impact on all technology issues.
Ron Sadler
MTC-00008439
From: Sandy (038) Jeff Melin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
May it please the Court: that I, as a non-techie computer user
both at home and work for the last 12 years, recognize the benefits
of Microsoft's products as superior in delivering utility and
function to both the average and advanced business user. I also
recognize the superiority of other vendors products in casual at
home, the arts, and design applications.
As a senior citizen, and lifelong student of business and
economics; I find it abhorent that an innovator, the likes of which
have been penalized before for similar achievement and creativity--
would again be brought to its knees by the least common denominator
of our society--success! What has happened to the American Dream? Do
we really want to squash the incentive to excel and achieve?
Jeffrey N. Melin
Carmel, IN
MTC-00008440
From: Carol Sandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice:
I am writing to register my opinion that the Microsoft case
should be settled as soon as possible and not be further litigated.
I base my opinion on the fact that the federal government and nine
states have already reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft
to address the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals
ruling. I believe that this settlement is tough, but reasonable and
fair to all parties involved. I also believe that this settlement is
good for consumers, industry and the American economy.
Carol H. Sandt
382 River Road
Pequea, PA 17565 USA
717-284-2881
[email protected]
MTC-00008441
From: Kevin Kendrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While I commend the US government and most of the states in
reaching a settlement agreement with Microsoft, I believe that the
process and the costs are out of line with the value the citizen/
consumers have received. This is not where we should be spending our
valuable resources.
I do not see how this ``U.S. settlement'' helps me and
definitely do not see how the ``holdout states'' settlement is
significantly better and worth the wait and expense of getting it.
It is the job of the government to protect the consumer (not the
competitors) against harmful practices. I am hard pressed to believe
that consumers like me need the help of the government in deciding
if we are getting the value out the product for the price. We vote
with our checkbooks and companies respond by adding more features or
reducing the price in line with the value they are delivering. As
for the response of the competitors, they should be responding in
the marketplace and not in the courtroom.
I am a user of Microsoft products and have enjoyed all of the
additional features they are constantly adding to make the product
easier and better to use. I call these improvements and am well
qualified to determine if I should purchase the product that offers
the improvements. Microsoft remains diligent in providing what the
customer demands and is spending what it takes to deliver the
technology to the customer at a great prices.
Let's get on with it and settle the case. It's dragged on too
long. Let's spend government resources where they are needed, in
helping people that need help.
Quit wasting our money and SETTLE.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kendrick
Kevin Kendrick
1305 Lombard Street #6
San Francisco, CA 94109
t: (415) 922-3078
m: (415) 572-4447
f: (419) 793-7306
e: mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
MTC-00008443
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
This AntiTrust Action by the government has gone on too long
already; let's close this action and carry on with progress. I am
disturbed that some litigants in this case want to prolong the legal
process.
Microsoft did indeed overstep the bounds of fair competition in
some of their agreements with hardware suppliers, but the solution
to that problem could have been resolved many years ago by
addressing the unfair practices and stopping them. Instead the
competitors enlisted the government to resolve their grievances at
no cost to them. These competitors had legal recourse of their own
in the court system if they wanted to pursue it. The complaint about
bundling software was and remains specious and against the benefits
to the consumer. For example, Netscape's programs could run on
Windows. How is that possible? It is because Microsoft gave them all
the information needed to program their software to run on Windows.
That is not the action of a company trying to deny use of their
system. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the cost of Windows
and other Microsoft products, so where has the consumer been hurt?
The bundling of software is one of the profound advances in system
operating systems. This is one of the profound improvements in
computer software developments.
Note that Microsoft has been very helpful financially and
technically to one of its arch rivals, Apple. Microsoft has
maintained Word and Excel software on Macintosh, even though they
probably have not made much money for their effort.
I do not understand what the States (and their lawyers) have to
gain by rejecting this settlement. Are they more interested in a
large financial settlement or a resumption of the economic growth of
the technical industry?
I think it is the former!
James R. Lloyd
514 Whitewing Lane
Houston, TX 77079
[email protected]
MTC-00008444
From: Arlene A DiRocco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Special interest groups and politicians who
want some free publicity are attempting to derail the settlement
agreement. September 11 is what we should be focusing on and the
security of our nation and its people. Please finalize this and get
it over with.
Arlene A. DiRocco
10 Old Colony Road
Burlington, MA 01803
MTC-00008445
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25026]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let Microsoft alone ...... the only reason they were persecuted
is that Microsoft was a big target for Fed employees who didn't have
anything to do. God Bless Bill Gates & Microsoft & Windows ..... did
you ever have to navigate a computer using keystrokes?
Dan Keith
MTC-00008446
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In full support of the recently reached Microsoft settlement, I
wish to express my opinion. This is a reasonable and fair agreement
and will be to the advantage of all concerned and most especially,
the public. I am a voice of many seniors and am most grateful that
this settlement has been reached, though I have no personal reason
other than the enjoyment of the Microsoft programs.
Sincerely,
B. Eaton Rhea
MTC-00008447
From: HAROLD WEISSENBURG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Please settle. Just like the VCR, we need a standard and
Microsoft has nearly provided that.
Now lets get
Apple to merge!
Harold W. Weissenburg ([email protected])
MTC-00008448
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As a citizen of the United States, I believe that our gov't. has
already wasted millions in their worthless pursuit of a company that
has done more for technology and the economy than one could imagine.
Any ``settlement'' should avoid any and all types of financial
punishment.
MTC-00008449
From: Robert Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please lets get this thing behind us. Microsoft has done
wonderful things for this country. Let the litigation end and force
the lawyers to go find other work. BnB.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008450
From: Barb (038) Chuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:12pm
Subject: class action law suit against microsoft
It is my opinion that the U.S.G. is spending a lot of time
trying to find a dead horse. The several states that are pushing to
get a verdict friendly to them are just plain greedy. They (the
states) hopped on a band wagon to get ``free dollars''. The thing
that one must do at this point of time is say that they will suffer
no more expenses,fire their lawyers and say that is enough. Not
being a lawyer it is apparent that the USG has recovered many
dollars through income tax and other methods.
thank you.
MTC-00008451
From: Paula Hettler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please bring about the end to this lawsuit as soon as possible.
I believe it is best for all involved.
Paula Hettler
1208 Nyssa
McAllen, TX 78501
MTC-00008452
From: Marion Dye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have never been so upset in my life over the wanton waste of
money for this whole lawsuit.
Why should anyone be penalized for being intelligent and
industrious, and making things happen. It's a shame that someone has
to sue because they came a 'day late and a dollar short' to compete.
Where was this 'person'(s) in the beginning?? They could have
started this whole thing too. They had every opportunity.
But no, they would rather whine & moan that they can't compete--
go figure? For the service provided, and being a consumer, I don't
feel that Microsoft has been unfair to us. We revel in the 'new'
world they have provided for us.
I would hope that this 'rubbish' is over--let the competitors
compete for a piece of the pie. . . . . . . .not sue!
I thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the `outcry'.
Sincerely,
Marion Dye
MTC-00008453
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Just dropping you a line asking for the government to stop
attacking Microsoft and use our general tax revenues toward more
productive purposes. Get politics out of free enterprise.
thank you,
JIM Thomas
MTC-00008454
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I have never written to the government about anything in my 49
years. However I felt compelled to send a brief email message about
the Microsoft settlement. Considering the other crisis this country
has been hit with in recent times. I feel the government has spent
enough of our tax dollars on a witch hunt. The time has come to
finally settle this matter and move onto more pressing National
concerns! Please put me in the column of the Microsoft suit be
settled, final answer.
Yours,
Robert Rodgers
MTC-00008455
From: Regchuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:20pm
As a deeply concerned and productive citizen I urge the court to
accept the settlement proposed in the Microsoft case. The advances
made by our country by virtue of computer technology has allowed
enhanced prosperity across the nation. Competition put us there, and
it must not be curtailed simply because others feel threatened.
Every business feels threatened by competition, and that leads to
enhanced creativity and well serves our public interest. One look at
the marketplace leaves the undeniable impression that any person or
company with the guts to get out there and compete, is allowed to do
just that. Witness the number of computer oriented companies that
existed when Microsoft came about, versus the staggering number
successfully competing today. That would not be the case if the
field were anything but level. The proof, is looking us in the eye.
I consider this case to be fairly considered, but unrealistically
brought to court when viewed in the bright light of cold truth. The
expense to the taxpayer has been great enough, and the settlement
remedy fair.
Charles M. Asbury
Attorney at Law
Sacramento, California
MTC-00008456
From: Walt Haas (www.xmission.com/haas)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I oppose the settlement negotiated by DoJ in the Microsoft case.
I support stronger protections against continued criminal conduct by
Microsoft as requested by the nine dissenting states, including my
own State of Utah.
Walter O. Haas
717 Ninth Avenue
Salt Lake City UT 84103
``Linux is a cancer''--Steve Ballmer
``First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you. Then you win.''--Gandhi
MTC-00008457
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:22pm
Subject: the settlement
Bill Gates and his Companies have advanced computer technologies
beyond anyone's imagination. Leave him run his companies his way and
we'll all profit.
Victor S. Frake
[email protected]
MTC-00008458
From: Larry Greene
[[Page 25027]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
Attorney General Ashcroft:
Please drop all anti-trust suits against Microsoft. Microsoft
has done nothing wrong. Micorsoft is simply popular and deserving of
success. Bill Gates is an American hero. Anti-trust laws are anti-
business and should be abolished. If monopoly busting is a goal of
the Department of Justice, then go after the true culprits: Amtrak,
the U.S. Postal Service, public education, and Indian casinos to
name but a few.
Larry Greene
127 Rt. 2A
Preston, CT 06365
860-887-5350
MTC-00008459
From: Suresh C. Rastogi, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I strongly agree with the Microsoft Settlement.
This is in the interest of progress and freedom to bring to the
consumers the best products at the reasonable prices.
Suresh C. Rastogi, Ph.D.
MTC-00008460
From: Wes Farmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I strongly support the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I
believe we, as a people, have many more important things to do than
stifle innovation.
MTC-00008461
From: Russell Yuma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I was not in favor of litigation against Microsoft in the first
place. Now that a settlement has been proposed I believe any further
litigation should be terminated. The States against settlement are
wrong in asking for further restrictions on Microsoft and are
extreme in their thinking. They do not understand competitive
business and are in fact hurting the consumers they say they want to
protect.
There should be no more consideration for further litigation.
All this will do is damage the economy and not help consumers in any
way.
Do you hear consumers complaining? I think not and believe
consumers are satisfied. So, let's put an end to all this action
against Microsoft.
Russell Yuma
PO Box 165
Oakland, OR 97462
MTC-00008462
From: Meredith Raney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/3/02
Dear DOJ Sirs,
It is my understanding that the purpose of the anti-trust laws
is to protect the consumer and only the consumer. As far as I can
tell, the only entities even alleged to be damaged in the Microsoft
case are a few whining competitors of Microsoft.
I have seen no evidence presented that any consumer has been
damaged by Microsoft, so leave Microsoft alone.
Please, just do your job and enforce the law as written to
protect the consumer and don't worry about a few companies who can't
run with the big dogs.
If the consumer starts getting hurt, we'll be the first to let
you know. Then, and only then, should you jump in and enforce the
law.
Sincerely yours,
Meredith Raney
2488 Burns Ave.
Melbourne, FL 32935 Phone (321) 254-5481
MTC-00008463
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
I think the DOJ settlement concerning the Microsoft settlement
is fair. Keeping the company intact is in the interests of all.
However oversight needs to be taken for a period of time collecting
any instances of not following the points of the settlement.These
should be documented and any serious non-compliance of this matter
should cancel the settlement. Microsoft has been given a chance to
work out this matter and should take advantage of the settlement and
work fairly in the marketplace.
Ted Maligranda
82 David st
South River
NJ 08882
MTC-00008464
From: Dayna Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor or the Department of Justice stopping any actions
it is pursuing against Microsoft. The stock has plummited and
numerous investors like myself have lost a lot. I feel if the
government had not pursued Microsoft, the stock market, technology
stocks, would not be in the condition it is in. We can thank Bill
Clinton.
If Microsoft has done something so terribly wrong, then why is
it every government agency and business uses Microsoft products to
run their computer systems? I am a Federal employee and everything
we use at our agency is a Microsoft product. All laptops, desktops
and shared workstations are run by Microsoft.
I'll bet if some took a look around the Department of Justice
your computer systems are all Microsoft based. How about email? How
about work processing programs? How about calendar systems? How
about spread sheet programs? Should I continue? What about companies
like Intel? What about their processors? What other companies use
their processors in as many computers?
Drop what you are doing, let them get back to business.
Microsoft is producing the best computer software in the world. Let
them continue.
MTC-00008465
From: Hollis Scarbrough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the Department of Justice to discontinue all litigation
against Microsoft. I was totally opposed to the government's role in
the action taken against Microsoft. Microsoft should not be
penalized for being a success.
MTC-00008466
From: Randy Hackney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: Public comment period for the Tunney Act. Leave Microsoft
alone; let the settlement agreement stand without further litigation
being allowed. The last thing the American economy needs is more
litigation that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles
innovation.
Don't let the lawyer lobby keep this alive for their benefits in
fees; nor allow the competitors who want to use Microsoft to defeat
the public interest in encouraging innovation.
Judy Hackney
Voter, District 1 of GA
MTC-00008467
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I found the settlement being by far in the interest of all us
consumers and the entire economy.In settling the case forthright we
will be able to focus on a much higher priorities:security,waging
this war and restore our economic growth. At time like this,I
repeat;The Nation at war and with a collapsing economy, this
settlement will be definetly in the interest of all America .
Sincerely,
Anthony Testa
MTC-00008468
From: Stuart Holden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was pleased to hear that the Microsoft Antitrust case had
settled in Federal Court, but then disappointed to hear that the
states ( including my own--Connecticut) were continuing their own
cases. In my 25 year career I have used many software products from
a variety of vendors--Borland, Symantec,
Oracle, Microsoft, Lotus, IBM, Sterling Commerce, MicroPro
(WordStar), Red Hat, Aldus, to name a few. I have found Microsoft
software to be the most intuitive and easy to use software; the
commonality across it's products has saved countless training
dollars.
While Microsoft could be viewed as a monopoly, it can also be
viewed as a provider of products which work together in a consistent
fashion. Doesn't anyone
[[Page 25028]]
remember ``IBM Compatible'' which ``meant buy it, see if it works
and doesn't stop anything else from working''.
The courts should get out of the marketplace and let consumers
decide with their wallets.
Stuart Holden
Shelton, Connecticut
MTC-00008469
From: Nancy T. von Hohenleiten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
MTC-00008470
From: Larry (038) Sandy Bancroft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:50pm
Subject: overzelous greed!?
All we heard for years is how Microsoft created unfair
competition. Now, we seem to have governments that aren't happy with
the results. Maybe we need to check out what is driving them. It
seems to me that the states & the federal government can't get
enough corporate dollars that consumers pay for.
The Tobacco & Microsoft settlement for instance, has shown state
governments that if they tie-up corporate America in the courts long
enough they will get free dollars. In Illinois the state in 2000
sent out refund checks to tax payers from the tobacco settlement.
Small as they were, the state said not to worry we have plenty more
dollars coming from the settlement. Of course the money was spent
faster than it was coming in now we have budget short falls. Yes not
all of our budget blunders could have been foreseen but the point is
that money was for smoking related illness that the state will be
stuck with in the years to come.
But then again who pays corporate America? No the consumer. Now
is the time to say to all states & the usdoj. sign on to the
Microsoft settlement are be left out in the cold without a dime.
Microsoft has offered a fair settlement to all but some never seem
happy. Don't get me wrong it's just not the states that aren't happy
many inefficiently run companies are just as unhappy. They want more
in the way of free handouts too. America was built on hard work by
both cooperate & labor. The freedom to take an idea make it work &
be so revolutionary in a industry is the American dream. Take the
settlement with all the perks just let Microsoft have the ability to
continue innovate. For that matter let all companies have the right
to innovate.
Sincerely
Larry Bancroft
Shareholder
MTC-00008471
From: Bill Richardsn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As usual the Hatch justice system and the DOJ allegations are
misguided and inappropriate. Would you also defile the sanctity of
all Intellectual property as monopolistic and predatory? How in a
world with freedom to innovate can you be so blatantly non-
objective? Would you also expose the formula for Coca-Cola and
Colonel Sanders 11 Secret Herbs and Spices? If so what freedom to
innovate would I as an Internet software developer have to protect
my interests? Because I find a market and take advantage of it am I
predatory? Is the effervescent struggle between Coca-Cola and Pepsi
the next target for your insane jealousies and obvious favoritism
for Sen. Orin Hatch ?s and Time Warner's Quest for more dollars and
favoritism because their product is without Office applications and
without a viable desktop graphical operating system? Coca-Cola and
Pepsi came out of their rift better companies because of a system we
treasure here in this United States ``free enterprise''. Would you
make Ford put in Chevy engines because Ford in using it's own
engines is predatory and unfair. Is any thing called a ``free
enterprise system'' fair? No it is predatory and unfair. That is the
basis of capitalism. If the shoe were on the other foot for Hatch he
would be gloating and all puffed up like the banty rooster he
resembles Concerning Microsoft and Netscape, Ford and Chevy had the
same problems as did Coke and Pepsi, Where Coke had a 90% market
Pepsi had none in comparison, they remarketed and repackaged their
products and bought some other popular come latelys Mountain Dew and
so forth to enhance their market base to compete, then Coke had to
do the same thing. Ford and Chevy continually made different styles
of automobiles to appeal to different strata of the market. You must
be blind to the times when competition was paramount and the
devising of new strategies be came what stuff men and women were
made of, competition proved the playing field and then leveled it,
due to those fresh ideas and innovations of those individuals.
(Harley in the Chevy design of the 50?s that gave Ford it's impetus
to innovate, in example)
You people need a reality check.
William ``Bill'' Richardson
Cheif Operating Officer
Richcorp, Inc. http://www.richcorp.net/>
MTC-00008472
From: SusanHobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:51pm
Subject: Please add my support to the settlement that the Justice
Department has now
Please add my support to the settlement that the Justice
Department has now offered Microsoft. I believe it is in the
interest of the American economy and in the interest of innovative
freedom to support this settlement.
Sincerely,
Dr. Susan A. Hobbs
MTC-00008473
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:50pm
Subject: America Punishes Success
Dear DOJ,
Individuals and businesses continue the struggle against Federal
Government. The economy does not grow; rates of return are down to
low single digits; and the high tech industry is on ts back.
The punishing tax rates in the USA and the abuse of the legal
system by greedy lawyers just holds America back.
I enjoy Microsoft products. For what little I pay for them, I
receive tremendous value. Why Oh why do you let Microsoft's
competitors--with their greedy lawyers--abuse the legal system to
try to punish Microsoft for being successful? We consumers are not
complaining about Microsoft's products or prices!!!
Please please stop punishing Microsoft and lets get the economy
rolling again.
Very truly yours,
Richard Stouts
P.O. Box 4378
Pahrump, Nv. 89041-4378
MTC-00008474
From: Yemm (038) Hart Ltd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:51pm
Subject: Settlement Comments
Hello DOJ:
We are a small 2 person business, selling special building
products in the US and Europe. We could not have had the success we
have had without the benefit of integrated software from Microsoft.
Business is difficult enough, and we have little time to invest into
the workings of our computers or software too, however we must. We
have found that there is more of a chance for integration errors
when there is more than one type of software. So we appreciate the
Microsoft Windows, Explorer and Office software all working
together, almost seamlessly.
We have followed the case hoping Microsoft's advisories would
not prevail. The settlement as we understand it is fair and will
benefit many young people who otherwise may not get the chance to
learn and interact with such an essential tool as a computer and
good software. I would hope that the DOJ could divert its assets
devoted to this case towards seeking out foreign and domestic
terrorists because that is the most serious issue we in the
civilized world face today.
Sincerely,
Stephen W Yemm, Yemm & Hart Ltd
MTC-00008475
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Because of their dominant position in the computer operating
system market I the consumer can walk into any office or home and do
some constructive work immediately. If the market consisted of
plethora of competing OS's that would be nearly impossible. My life
is better, easier and much more productive with the essential
standardization that has happened largely due to market conditions.
I have owned computers with different operating systems and while
theirs is far from perfect, the fact that it is the same whether at
work or in a cyber cafe in UlanBator, Mongolia has improved my
computing life not harmed it.
Christopher Stahler
Wenatchee, WA
MTC-00008476
From: Hite, Peggy A.
[[Page 25029]]
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: My opinion regarding Microsoft's Antitrust Lawsuit Although
Microsoft's domination of the market could be perceived/interpreted
as undue control in the market, the packaging made the end product
far easier for users like me who want one easy, complete unit
(software and all) ready to be used. If I had to make more decisions
up front about issues such as whether to use internet explorer or
netscape, I would not have known what to use. By virtue of choosing
a windows product, I wanted a compact, streamlined, ready to use
package of software--without having to spend hours deciding which of
this and which of that, when I wouldn't have understood the choices
anyway.
Because of Microsoft, we are all more savvy than we would have
been without their readily available packages to get us started.
They should not be punished for making an entire system more user
friendly.
Peggy Hite, CPA, Ph.D.
2304 Linden Hill Rd
Bloomington, IN 47401
MTC-00008477
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please to all conmcverned: settle tjis matter and let's get onto
positive matters and stope wasting money.
Good luck.
Robert Gregoire
Rumney New Happshire
MTC-00008478
From: John S. Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:54pm
Subject: Stupid Clinton
CC: RFC-822=Finflash 1-2-02.UM.A. 1154.142@commpartners....
Dear DOJ,
You people can and do screw up more things than you take care of
or at least it seems. I believe it was really the Clit-tongue
administration. Leave people alone, Microsoft does more good that we
benifit from directly as consummers than any other company, when it
comes to computers. I dislike the government enough without you
people messing around with my computer and software at home. Say
hello to Mr Ashcroft for me, I have trust in him.
Regards, God Bless America &
George Bush
John
([email protected])
MTC-00008479
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Early settlement is in the consumer's interest and it should be
implemented as soon as possible. Microsoft has done more for the
technology and consumer than any other company. This litigation non-
sense should be finished once and for all.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008480
From: crussell4
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the current remedies are totally inadequate to
protect the consumer.
I have thought for years that the monopolistic and predatory
business practices of Microsoft required the splitting of the
company into an OS company and an applications company. In that way,
all application developers are on an equal footing...Microsoft vs
independents. As we found out in 1983 with the break-up of AT&T, the
development of telecommunications technology flourished. Further
remedies may be appropriate in this age of the internet and other
future possibilities.
Above all, Microsoft must not be allowed to flood schools with
software as part of this settlement. It would be tantamount to the
government promoting the MS monopoly.
Chuck Russell in Great Neck
MTC-00008481
From: R. C. Dobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I cannot believe that we/our government is still chasing after
Microsoft's dollars-and that is what this witch hunt is about more
than just ``justice''.
Why didn't we look into the anti-trust area regarding Cargill
taking over Continental Grain? At least we don't have to use
computers and we could always buy an ``Apple''. I'll bet virtually
every meal eaten in the U.S. has a food directly or produced from
grain that Cargill/Continental Grain has touched.
Leave Microsoft alone and call off the 9 + or--states
individually pursuing their own agenda. Microsoft may have bent the
rules, but Sun or many others would have likely done the same if
they could have. I remember when you were never sure of the
compatability of programs. Microsoft has done a great service in
standardizing many applications. (Now if Windows always operated
just as it is supposed to, but I digress.)
Thank you,
R. C. Dobson, Ph.D.
R. C. Dobson, Ph.D.
215 Starbright Court
Wellington, CO 80549
cell: 970-215-7173 res:970-568-3991
e-mail: [email protected] or
largeanimalconsulting.com
fax: 970.568.3992
MTC-00008482
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe that the proposed settlement is just and fair. It is
good for consumers and industry.
Dr. and Mrs Joseph Fox
MTC-00008483
From: E. H. John Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I believe that consumers should have equal access to application
system providers other than Microsoft. If this is accomplished, then
I believe the judgment should be accepted so that all the
uncertainties that are affecting Microsoft will be eliminated and
the company can go forward for the benefit of consumers and, also,
its stockholders.
E. H. John Johnson
MTC-00008484
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Tunney Act
Dear Court of Appeals:
I very much support the Tunney Act as currently written (1/02/
02). As a Professor of Management at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, I have long felt that Microsoft has been unfairly attacked
in their business practices.
Since they are willing to accept the current conditions under
the Tunney Act let's bring this situation to a quick resolution.
For the record I do not own stock in Microsoft or have anything
to do with the company.
Best wishes,
Marc Schniederjans
5901 S. 72nd Street
Lincoln, NE 68516
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00008485
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am an a middle aged female of average intelligence who has
been watching the Justice Department go after Microsoft for what it
considers 'unfair and predatory practices' for several years now. I
have heard both sides speak and I must say that while I believe that
Microsoft did use practices that some may consider questionable,
(There are also many who believe that WalMart, Intel and several
others have done the same thing.) they were also improving the lives
of many average Americans who would not be able to sit at their
computers today and point and click to go wherever they want.
Before the Windows operating system became the industry
standard, the average person, was not able to use a computer at all.
Therefore Microsoft has helped bolster not only itself but also all
the hardware and software manufacturers out there, including those
who have come out publicly against them. I have heard more than one
CEO of a large company make the claim that without Microsoft's
innovation their job of running their company would have been made
more difficult. Most of us don't even remember that this whole
lawsuit began with a disgruntled company wanting to charge a premium
price for what Microsoft wanted to give away free. (Netscape)
Somehow this takes most of the meat out of the claim that
Microsoft's practices are bad for the
[[Page 25030]]
consumer. It may not be too healthy for the companies wanting to
make money, but such is our wonderful free enterprise system. Only
the strong will survive and Microsoft's very survival over the last
years certainly is testimony to their strength amoung consumers.
Yes, it may seem unfair that computer manufacturers have to pay
extra to Microsoft to install Windows, but so would the consumers.
They would probably rather see the consumer pay the extra money for
Windows, which most will gladly spend. Windows is a licensed product
and therefore it should cost manufacturers to install it. They
should also keep in mind that computers would not be in as
widespread of use and therefore bolstering computer company profits,
if it weren't for their ease of use with the Windows operating
system.
The Government also employs monopolistic practices in many of
it's daily operations. I pay many taxes for things that I don't even
know about and yet the Justice Department has not once suggested
that the current systems be examined.
I recently had an unpleasant experience that convinced me even
more that Microsoft has done only good for the average computer
user. (I'm saying average now, not educated.) Our home computer was
the victim of a virus which totally wiped out Windows. We were
trying to use MSDOS to save important files and found it too
frustrating and ended up reformatting our hard drive just so we
could reinstall Windows. I am only one consumer, but I know that I
speak for many when I say to the Justice Department, ``LEAVE
MICROSOFT ALONE AND LET THEM CONTINUE TO DEVELOP PRODUCTS WHICH MAKE
ALL OF OUR LIVES (INCLUDING YOURS!) EASIER.''
Thank You for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion. I
love being an American...GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
MTC-00008486
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I've followed the US Department of Justice litigation against
Microsoft for several years. It is my opinion that the US Department
of Justice should not pursue further litigation against Microsoft.
Microsoft is a large benefit to the United States and the world
today. They are innovators and market creators, and they have
created more jobs than any other corporation in today's economy. The
corporation has allowed small investors to become financially
independent by creating individual investment opportunities for
them.
More importantly; Microsoft has pioneered, developed, and led
the market in a very successful technology that has allowed the
United States to lead the world in data processing and machine
communications.
How can the US Department of Justice think this is preventing
competition? Microsoft has created opportunity for competition. This
corporation has standardized the industry and fostered growth
through excellence in design engineering. Competing corporations
would have fractured industry standards which would have raised
prices to the consumer and stifled growth.
If competing corporations had a better idea, a better mouse trap
so to speak, and had been able to succeed in the market place, in
real market place competition, they would have been the first to
stifle competition. That seems to be the problem. Competing
corporations were not able to compete in the market place and have
resorted to influencing government litigation to stifle Microsoft.
This is my opinion and I thank you for allowing me to express
myself.
Stan Foster
211 Robin Lane
Panama City Beach, FL 32407
850-249-2110
[email protected]
MTC-00008487
From: Paul J Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement q
Please tally my vote in favor of not imposing any penalties on
Microsoft or its creator, Bill Gates. An American hero who has the
talent and ability and drive to create a better mousetrap should be
rewarded, not punished. Our present day technological capabilities
with personal computers couldn't exist without the products
developed and marketed by Microsoft. Whatever rewards Mr. Gates has
garnered from his contributions to our way of life are well earned.
On his way to improving our lives, he has created untold wealth for
untold thousands of others including the very individuals who are
actively trying to promote the suppression of Microsoft and it's
superior products. Our nation has no business trying to downgrade
the production of capable companies for the benefit of competitors
who don't have the talent to do equally well. We need every bit of
forward progress that people of ability can provide. Punishing
Microsoft and Bill Gates is the equivalent of jailing Columbus,
gagging Newton and Copernicus, burning Galileo's books or
prohibiting Einstein from publishing and teaching. This country is
great because of people like Bill Gates and our reaction should
encourage more like him and not grind them down. Should we prohibit
Microsoft from tying Internet Explorer into Windows? Should we
prohibit a furniture maker from putting a fourth leg on a chair
because his competitors don't know how to make a good fourth leg?
Let Microsoft go; turn it loose and America will be better for it.
When the competitors develop truly advanced innovations, Microsoft
will not be able to hold them back unless our own government
contributes to their suppression. Thank you.
MTC-00008488
From: David Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
It is my belief that a settlement should be made between
Microsoft and our State and Federal Governments. Innovation is good
for all concerned and Microsoft has been instrumental in providing
this not only in our country, but throughout the world. It is my
opinion that we put this behind us and move forward instead of
backwards.
Sincerely,
David Clarke
MTC-00008489
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We agree with the settlement and hope that it will be executed.
Ed and Reva Potter
MTC-00008491
From: Ian Joyner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is guilty deserving suitable punishment. The current
settlement with them is not suitable punishment.
Ian Joyner
Expert shortcut tip: Dump Windows; get OS X; fire MCSE certified
time
wasters. XP--eXtremely Pathetic!
[email protected]://homepages.tig.com.au/ijoyner
MTC-00008492
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:17pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
I feel a settlement should be made as soon as possible. Included
should be a clause disallowing further litigation whatsoever in the
future. This settlement would also help get the economy going again
since all the effort being expended to destroy MSFT can be directed
to the common good.
NF
MTC-00008493
From: Chetan Desai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to appalaud the Department of Justice in dealing
with Microsoft anti-trust violations and reaching a fair settlement.
I understand that most of 9 states that continue to pursue
additional penalties are politically motivated and driven by
Microsoft competitors and/or greed in trying sue a big corporation
with deep pockets. If there is a legal way to do this, I would urge
you to separate yourself from the nine states that will not settle
for anything less then destruction of Microsoft. BTW, I am software
engineer and truly understand the areas where Microsoft has been
wrong and where Microsoft has been an aggressive competitor who went
a little too far into the illegal. However, the remedy (several
proposed are downright un-American and crazy) sought by some of
states are equivalent to a death sentence for stealing an item from
a retail store. Best Wishes to the Justice Department and keep up
the good work!!
Chetan Desai
[[Page 25031]]
2042 Pinecrest Drive
Morgantown, WV 26505
(304)292-0683
MTC-00008494
From: Robert Kossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop the frivolous lawsuits and get on with life.
MTC-00008495
From: Ted Keesee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to stop punishing American Corporations for being
successful. Microsoft products have been reasonably priced and of
exceptional quality. I am very disappointed that the government is
wasting time and money pursuing this matter. There are much bigger
problems to solve in this world than trying to figure out how to
punish people for providing products consumers want and are happy
with. It is time to get over it!
Sincerely
Ted Keesee
500 Forestdale Drive
Atlanta, GA 30342
MTC-00008496
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is in the best interest of the public at large to proceed
with the settlement that has been agreed to by Microsoft and the
DOJ. It would be a mistake to prolong the litigation when there is
an opportunity to reach a settlement now. The opposition has had
their day in court---now it's time to move on with the settlement at
hand.
Melvin O. Moehle
MTC-00008497
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:26pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I FEEL THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR AND I SUPPORT THE COMPANY FOR
THEIR MANY INOVATIONS WHICH HAS REDUCED THE COST OF COMPUTER
THROUGHPUT.
SINCERELY
JEROME L. SOBEL
MTC-00008498
From: warren stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:29pm
Subject: As a free person of the world I implore you to keep As
a free person of the world I implore you to keep the world free.
People do not have to but the product of any company if they choose
not to. Microsoft may have bought some companies but the owners did
not have to sell them to Microsoft.
Do not split up Microsoft as it might stop ALL new inventions
becoming worldwide and only the very privileged might get them. I
reiterate. Please do not split companies up. If a company does
wrong, the other companies in that field do not work with them or
the public boycotts them.
Keep microsoft the way it is.
Thank You
Warren stewart Perth
MTC-00008499
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:35pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
According to Microsoft, their number one competitor is Linux and
other open source software. Most people agree. The proposed DOJ
settlement is supposed to make API's and protocols available to
other developers. However, the current proposed settlement has a
loophole that would deny to Linux access to Microsoft proprietary
protocols and file formats. An agreement which which excludes
Microsoft's main competitor is almost completely empty.
File formats and network protocols should require approval of an
independent review committee such as the IETF and be made available
to open source developers. Open protocols and data interchange
formats are an essential part of the Department of Defense's Joint
Technical Architecture (JTA--see http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil/).
Proprietary protocols are at odds with the both the JTA and the need
to have competitive sources available for military communications
equipment.
Larry Doyle
Software Architect--Small Unit Operations Situation Awareness
System (SUOSAS) A program of the Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency (DARPA) program
ITT Industries
Home address:
314 Stone Rd
Hazlet
NJ 07730
The opinions expressed are my own and are not necessarily
endorsed by ITT Industries, DARPA or the DoD.
MTC-00008500
From: Bob Giese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone. Only the lawyers are getting rich.
Where would the P.C. be without Microsoft?
Robert Giese
MTC-00008501
From: R Patrcik Scanlon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Can you folks please get this thing settled. I think that what
is on the table is fine. I have no interest in this other than it is
time to move on. I think that Microsoft's competitors are trying to
derail.
R. Patrick Scanlon
MTC-00008502
From: The Washingtons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly urge you to impose a harsher penalty on Micro$oft for
their illegal activities. I don't believe they take seriously the
findings of the court and are not acting in a manner consistent with
halting their illegal conduct and promoting competition in the
industry. The court should be insistent on depriving Microsoft of
its illegal gains, not extending their monopoly into the education
field.
Craig Washington
Happy New Year
MTC-00008503
From: Bill Rice
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/3/02 9:48pm
Subject: windows xp
Dear Mr. Gates
I am a long time Microsoft supporter . . . have bought almost
every upgrade version of Windows, Office, FrontPage.etc !!!! . . . I
work on as laptop and have a desktop for home, a laptop for my wife,
and two desktops for my 2 children. I recently purchased the latest
version of everything available.spending over $750 before the
holidays. I have been buying Microsoft products for years . . .
I am ABSOLUTELY APPALLED that the XP operating system requires
that I purchase an additional license, for hundreds of dollars, for
every PC in my house . . . (this is not obvious on the purchased
product, from the retail salesperson, on the Microsoft website, or
in any advertisement.I looked! I didn't have my bi-focals and
couldn't read the VERY SMALLEST PRINT) I have always supported
Microsoft.and have not supported the federal and state lawsuits . .
.
BUT . . . I FEEL ROBBED.no salesman warned me that, unlike all
previous versions . . . I would have to buy separate, EXPENSIVE
licenses for each computer in my home.(I buy a VCR tape.and use it
in all my VCRs.) . . . so I am sad to say that tonight I am writing
to Judge Kollar-Kotally as well as to all of the states attorneys
general . . . To convey my personal experience.that Microsoft is not
playing fair with its market advantage . . . UNTIL TONIGHT, I WAS AN
ARDENT MICROSOFT SUPPORTER . . . THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION ON THE
XP BOX THAT THE UPGRADE WILL ONLY WORK ON ONE COMPUTER . . . I feel
misled and disappointed . . . my children use XP at school and I
wanted to use the same operating system at home for projects and
homework.but to put the operating system on their PCs costs over
$500 and there is no alternative operating system platform. . . .
I think the uniformity of platform created by a broadly
successful Microsoft has helped propel significant increases in our
national productivity. I now believe that Microsoft is taking
advantage of the ``little guy,'' and that this pricing scheme may
reflect a portion of what others in the technology industry have
been complaining about. I didn't understand or appreciate the
problem until tonight.
Thanks for taking the time to review these comments.
Bill Rice
CC:Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw, . . .
[[Page 25032]]
MTC-00008504
From: Clif Ars
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel strongly that it would be in the best interest of the
public and the economy for the ``Tunney Act'' to go through. I have
little doubt that many view Microsoft's domination within the
technology sector as a monopoly, but to define a true monopoly the
public's benefit and interest must be harmed. As a consumer, I
cannot see where I or the consumer base at large has been hurt by
Microsoft. We as a nation should realize the part that this company
played in the strongest economy growth in history. The jobs, the
taxable revenue, and the products that have put this country on the
map in the I.T. World. Please take a look at some of these companies
at the forefront of this costly litigation and ask yourself, ``Is it
the consumer that they are trying to help, or themselves?'' Is this
the cost of doing business in America?
What company is going to be targeted next?
Thank you
MTC-00008505
From: Rick Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I wish my Attorney
General could look past his campaign contributions from Silicon
Valley and support it also.
Richard Becker
El Cajon, CA
MTC-00008506
From: Ross Fontenot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that you should either accept the agreement by microsoft
and the states or drop all charges. If you try to screw Microsoft
they will screw you out of millions of tax dollars by taking the
offer made to them by British Columbia. Microsoft was just as big as
a monopoly as Walmart but no one ever brought charges against them
even though charges should be brought against them because they
squash their competitors especially in small cities like I live in.
That is why I buy everything on the net because I will not support
Walmart but I will support Microsoft because they care about their
consumers and try to be the best while offering great products. DO
NOT stop this by limiting their innovation. If you want to screw
someone scew Walmart.
MTC-00008507
From: Keith Beavers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
I sincerely urge acceptance. Lets move on.
MTC-00008508
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02 10:02pm
Subject: MS Anti-trust and Tunney Act of 1974
Good Folk--
In accordance with the Tunney Act of 1974 I'm offering my public
comment on the MicroSoft Anti-trust case now in it's 60-day public
comment period that started on Nov. 28. I hav worked with computers
and computer software in a wide variety of jobs for the past 35
years.
I do not think that the current settlement is in the best
interest of the American people. Microsoft's arguements that browser
(et al) functionality is part of the operating system is specious
and without any technically provable merit whatsoever. Further,
their dominance of the computing field today parallels IBM's over 30
years ago; even the argumentative stance of the corporate legal
staff is vaguely familiar to me. And, of course, both companies, at
the times of their litigation, made and delivered nororiously shoddy
software products.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need more
information ...
Leon S. Chojnacki CBCP
MTC-00008509
From: jerry bergeron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel this lawsuit has consumed way too much time and expense
on both sides...
Leave the settlement as is...
MTC-00008510
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I have followed this case from the very start. As an educator,
parent and computer user. I think the current proposed settlement
offer is more than fair. It is outrageous to consider complaints
that: A) the computers offered are out of date or reconditioned. ALL
computers are out of date within 6 months to a year! If these
computers are networked in a school, they are simply work stations.
1. By supplying windows systems, MS is being self serving. If anyone
else had offered windows, they would have loved it! NO other company
in the history of our country has EVER been asked to supply a
product other than their own as part of a settlement! Has the
government asked General Motors to supply Chrysler products as a
remedy? and Firestone? NEVER! It has always been, fix, repair,
REPLACE, supply or refund. The precedent this would create is to
ridiculous to consider!
I support an immediate settlement...as proposed by Microsoft.
Bob Minott
MTC-00008511
From: Joy Staveley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justices,
I am a Mac Computer (Apple) User, but I also use Microsoft
software. I believe the recent settlement proposal fo the Microsoft
lawsuit is fair and in the best interest of the end user--people
like me.Microsoft has made a huge positive difference in the
personal and business computer world. Their user friendly, practical
applications have advanced the technology of computers faster than
one could imagine! It's time to put this lawsuit behind us, and move
forward. It has taken a long time to get to this point. Careful
review and decision has been made. I would urge the court to follow
through and confirm the decision.
Sincerely,
Joy Iris Staveley, Vice President
Canyoneers, Inc.
[email protected]>
PO Box 2997
Flagstaff, AZ 86003
MTC-00008512
From: William
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:08pm
Subject: Please read this letter
Judge,
I am very concerned about the direction that this case is
turning into and its like other case brought before MS. Now its time
for MS to wiggle out of this like they have so many other times. MS
proposes that they give a billion dollars of there products and
services to schools. I am shocked that anyone that knows anything
about the software industries can even call this a penalty. This is
like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop (I am sorry for
using this old phrase). This penalty is a reward to MS. In years to
come they have more buyers of there product and they get to dominate
a market that they have battle for many years with Apple.
I propose:
First a billion dollars is a slap on the hands (which is what
they want) for MS. You need to get really tough with this people or
they are back to doing this again (I my opinion they already are
doing this with Windows XP). It needs to really hurt this company
and 20 billion is much better. Second have them put some of this
money into a trust fund for schools to choose which computer system
and software they believe is better. Last and most important if they
have wronged other companies they need to pay these companies big
dollars or what good does this whole process accomplish? Netscape
was my web browser of choice for many years but now its MS explorer.
Not because MS did better but Netscape could not compete under the
unfair market that existed at the time and ended up selling off to
AOL. These people have been robbed of there hard work. MS needs to
pay the wrong to these people!
I also believe that MS needs to be broken into many smaller
companies but this is now a thing of the past.
Thanks for your time.
William Davis
232 So. Washington
New Bremen Ohio 45869
[email protected]
MTC-00008513
From: John Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:15pm
Subject: End Law Suit
MTC-00008514
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25033]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anti Trust Division
Department of Justice
I am interested in saying YES to the recent microsoft
settlement. I have reviewed many of the documents in this case and
think it a good fair settlement for all parties. Our country and its
citizens have been through enough, let it stand. The settlement as
it stands would be good for our economy and we can all move on.
Sincerely,
camille mangakis
MTC-00008515
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case. Do not let a few disgruntled
staes and competitors prlong this case. For the good of the
worldwide economy, settle the case as agreed upon with the
government. With any decision there will always be a certain segment
of the population that will not agree, but the good of the country
should prevail.
MTC-00008516
From: Audrey Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please hear my voice..This is America..We have the freedom to
Innovate..We are a proud capitalistic society. Don't take away our
Freedom.
MTC-00008518
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to have my comments in this e-mail considered when
making the final judgement in the Microsoft settlement. If you want
to consider damages, my goverments' actions against Microsoft have
damaged many consumers much more than Microsoft's alleged monoply
could ever have. The plunge the stock market took can be related, in
many respects, to the governments lawsuit against Microsoft.
Millions of stock holders suffered damages when stocks they held
plunged in value because of the perceived threat to the technology
sector of the stock market. It wasn't just Microsoft stock holders
either, many technology stocks were affected by this lawsuit.
Microsoft operates in one of the most competitive and dog-eat-
dog businesses ever know to man. It has to constantly be inventing
and researching and developing new and innovative ways to help
consumers. The fact that Windows was put in many computers was a
plus to help standardize a new , and to many people, baffling
industry that changed the way the world goes about its everyday
tasks. It made the learning field much more level and less
confusing, there by familizing many millions of people with a brand
new industry.
The public will not be served by prolonging this lawsuit. It
stiffles the positive energy of this nation that can be used in much
more productive ways.
Please for the good of all concerned, let's get this settled and
move on.
Thank you,
Linda Pershall
PO Box 1922
Wenatchee, WA 98807
MTC-00008519
From: Rick Fontana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Lets get our economy moving again I support Microsoft and theie
ability to create new jobs and opportunity through their technology.
MTC-00008520
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I hope that the government allows Microsoft the additional four
months to prepare their case. As a computer instructor, I think
Microsoft has given the consumer the easiest way to use a computer
with Windows. My students who use Windows become self-sufficient
much more quickly than those who use other programs. The bundled
features and products which all work the same way, make learning
simple and quick. The legal arguments from other companies are self-
serving, ignoring the good of the consumer.
Jane Mason
MTC-00008521
From: Tim Semple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You know where the real monopoly resides? At the American Bar
Association, with its legions of parasitic, bloodsucking lawyers
ensuring that the taxpayer-funded legal system is responsive to
their self-centered whims. Why don't you Dept. of Justice people go
after monopolists like that piece of trash David Boie (or whatever
his name is - i.e. the shithead who did Al Gore's dirty work in
Florida, and who a dim bulb in the DOJ decided would be the perfect
lead counsel to unfairly slander and malign Microsoft while being
paid with my tax dollars). The courts have been subverted so that
the Spences, Baileys, Cochrans etc. etc. can plunder filthy lucre
from people who actually work for an honest living.
But all the lawyers in the Justice Dept. are blinded by their
allegiance to the American Bar Association (monkey see--monkey do)
and walk in lockstep to its every whim. The ABA--now that's a
monopoly that is screwing over the American public and someone ought
to do something about.
Did you know that the post office stopped issuing stamps with
lawyers on them? No one could figure out which side they should spit
on. Sincerely yours, someone who is disgusted with the DOJ's
meddling in the internal affairs of that American success story
known as Microsoft,
Tim Semple
North Pomfret, Vt.
MTC-00008522
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough !! It's past time to put this issue to rest. It appears
that big money is buying AG's from some states. There can't be any
satisfaction in the justice system being a part to their game. A
decision was made and accepted by the majority. Majority rules,
declare the Microsoft case closed.
Thank You,
Jim Worsham
MTC-00008523
From: Bill (038) Lou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ystueta Construction
106 Patrick Henry Lane
Madison, Alabama 35758
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write this letter to show my support for the settlement that
was reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The
antitrust dispute lasted for three years, and it is now finally
over. America can move on to improving its economy.
The settlement is offers a fair resolution to the settlement
that will benefit all parties involved. The terms not only call for
Microsoft to restructure certain aspects of their licensing and
marketing, but call for them to disclose information about certain
Windows interfaces. This not only allows other computer
manufacturers access to various Windows features, but also makes it
easier for them to install non-Microsoft software. This agreement
can only help promote the competitive market, and can only help our
IT Sector grow as a whole.
Microsoft has been distracted from its mission by litigation for
long enough. I support the settlement, and I support letting
Microsoft get back to being the IT industry leader that it can be.
Sincerely,
William Ystueta
MTC-00008524
From: PEGGY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Leave Microsoft alone, Please!!!!
MTC-00008525
From: cheryllreed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a life-long resident, registered and regular voter, taxpayer,
and business owner in the state of Ohio, one of the plaintiffs in
this case, I strongly urge that the proposed
[[Page 25034]]
settlement be made final and that this lawsuit is brought to a long
overdue end. I have communicated my strong objection to this suit to
Betty Montgomery, Ohio's Attorney General, numerous times since this
all began. In my opinion, this lawsuit was NEVER in the public
interest. I believe the recession we are now in was directly caused
by our government's intrusion in intellectual property rights and an
industry for which they have no understanding.
As a small business owner, I have watched as other businesses in
my community have either been driven out of business completely or
seen their businesses severely damaged by this economic situation.
To do anything less than settle this case by making the proposed
agreement official is nothing less than economic treason.
Microsoft software has revolutionized the way we do business and
established the United States as the world leader in technology.
It's time to let them go back to doing what they do best.
Cheryll Reed
1231 Richland St.
Maumee, Oh 43537
MTC-00008526
From: Bobbie Bamford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an American citizen and taxpayer, I would like to have you
settle immediately with Microsoft. NO MORE LITIGATION IS
NECESSARY...Please quit spending my hard earned tax dollars on this
and get your priorities straight. Like: terrorists, drug smuggling
and users who are making our country weak as they have blown their
brains on drugs, murderers and rapists.
This is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity. I feel Bill
Gates is only exercising his rights.
Sincerely,
Bobbie Bamford
Shelton, WA
MTC-00008527
From: Campbell McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To: Those Concerned
This is just my personal opinion, but I find it upsetting that
the states and the Federal Government's Justice Division can sue a
company for being successful. To win, to succeed, to have a good
product, to overcome competition, and to make money is what business
is all about. By very definition of the word ``business'' this means
a group of people joined together to present a product or service
for the intention of making money. Placing restrictions on Microsoft
operations is anti business and unamerican.
Campbell J. McCarthy
2199 Astor St. (Apt.# 202)
Orange Park, FL. 32073-5601
tel. (904) 541-0060
MTC-00008528
From: Ruth Seelye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 10:51pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I have found other companies, similar to Microsoft, to be as
competitive as they. In fact, my new computer was installed with
Netscape, which I did not want, and it crowded out everything else.
Finally,
I found a way to delete it Microsoft has been innovative in a
way which our country must encourage to stay ahead in this changing
world. This litigation saps funds and restricts on-going research
and development. Please, let this case be settled, so that Microsoft
can get back to doing what they do best--creating, innovating, and
enriching our lives.
Sincerely,
[email protected]
MTC-00008529
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Msdmes/Gentlemen:
As a retired local judge I find the vandetta waged against
Microsoft, essentially by competitors unable to effectively compete
in the marketplace, a terribly sad commentary on contemporary
business and social standards. Our Founding Fathers would be aghast
at the persistent energy-consuming intrusion into a firm which while
certainly has been ``raking it in'' has also contributed mightily to
the welfare of consumers and our country generally. The Microsoft
saga has not been a Teddy Roosevelt Trust-Busting replication.
Instead it has been an incidious mischevious intrusion by a well-
meaning, democratic government into trying to poison the incentives
for creativity.....the very thing that has made this wonderful
country so great. Ask yourselves.....``Would not other countries be
overjoyed to have a Microsoft in their midst?''
I urge you, please, to terminate this foolishness practiced
against Microsoft and direct your energies in areas that will truly
will afford benefit to our citizens.
Thank you.
Robert G. Fogelson, Taylortown Road, Montville, NJ 07045 973-
334-4427
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008530
From: S.A. Hepps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:07pm
Subject: Enough already! Stop the continuing greedy legal babble.
The American people
Enough already! Stop the continuing greedy legal babble. The
American people are sick and tired of this stupid lawsuit!
MTC-00008531
From: dino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:14pm
Subject: On the settlement
MTC-00008532
From: Richard H Freel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
Four years is long enough! Too long in fact!! All the suits
against MicroSoft should be thrown out. MS has done more for the
computer revolution and the national economy than anyone who is
complaining about them.
Let them get back to business!
MTC-00008533
From: Jeanette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
why can't this be over & done with so microsoft can get on with
the business at hand i think it's gone on long enough & let
microsoft do what it does very well 'that is create bigger & better
programs.
Have a great day or night !!!!!!!
MTC-00008534
From: Kelly V.B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my concern for the consumers, businesses
and for Microsoft. I feel that it is high time for this persecution
of Microsoft to come to a resolution. I feel that Microsoft is an
outstanding example of what an entrepreneur can achieve in these
United States of America. Microsoft has help to move this country
into a wonderful new era.
I am pleased to hear that a fair resolution is on the
negotiation table. For the sake of the consumers and for others who
would like to improve our way of life, allow Microsoft the freedom
to keep pushing ahead without further fear of persecution.
Thank you,
Kelly Van Blokland
1362 NW Front Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
MTC-00008535
From: Herbert Hurd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
I WISH I COULD BUILD A BETTER MOUSE TRAP. SO DOES THE
OPPOSITION!
MTC-00008536
From: Ann Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't know what we'd do without Microsoft products.Please stop
the litigation and leave them free to innovate. I think the
government is making a huge mistake and the court should stop for
several reasons, one being unemployment. Let the people get back to
work. Mr. Gates has given millions to education and other causes.
Why break Microsoft up?
Sincerely,
Annie Jackson
MTC-00008538
From: Kathleen Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets get this settled with Microsoft. It is important to
consumers and to our economy. I find it hard to believe this was
ever about protecting the consumer. This consumer has
[[Page 25035]]
been hurt and the economy of our nation has been hurt. Microsoft
should be applauded for it's economic growth of the American
economy.
Sincerely,
Kathleen E. Johnson
MTC-00008539
From: MARCENE HENDRICKSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer and user of Microsoft I am satisfied with the
settlement made with the Justice Department.
Please do not pursue any further.
MTC-00008540
From: Anna Jeannet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:51pm
Subject: SETTLE !!!
To Whom this May Concern,
I personally think the WHOLE attack on Microsoft has been unfair
and unjust. They are an excellent company, have excellent products--
--and they certainly do not force anyone to be their customers.
After all, isn't opportunity what our country all about? Should
excellence be allowed to be destroyed by the jealous and reduced to
mediocrity?
This whole ridiculous situation has gone on too long. And the
attorneys have probably made out like bandits as usual.
SETTLE WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY-----and turn yourselves to
important worldly issues. Further, I feel that Microsoft should be
re-imbursed its legal fees by its attackers.
Sincerely,
Anna Jeannet
MTC-00008541
From: Domingues, Tony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
The recent decisions have been fair, though I believe that it
shouldn't have started in the first place.
I have seen Microsoft improve the quality of the operation
System and offering what the consumer wants. This problem with other
companies like Sun and other companies should try and make better
software.
So what if Microsoft makes Internet Explorer as part of the
operation System, at least they are offering it in the package and
not making the user having to search for a downloadable copy of it.
Like Netscape's version 6 browser which was outright Pathetic and
slow, but Microsoft produced Internet explorer version 5.5 and 6
that followed and it was great as a standard browser. With XP for
example they offered the ability to watch DVD's, in the past you
would have to purchase some software just to watch DVD movies. In
the End we have to face it, it is their operation System; they
should be able to do what they want with it, people should be
concentrating in Improving and competing instead of whining when
their product is already a failure.
Other companies should take example of Intel and AMD, years ago
everyone also thought the Intel was the evil Monopoly Empire, AMD
and other companies also whinged, but look today, Intel is no longer
the main Stream. What happened in this example was the AMD competed
and also produced a superior product going against Intel's chain.
I think that it should all end now and everyone should just move
on and concentrate on the real problems facing the country, instead
of Bitching on small issues. Remember that Microsoft is pumping
Money into the American Economy, which currently almost faced a
recession. I just hop at the end of the day everyone could just move
on instead of whinging.
Regards
Tony Domingues
MTC-00008542
From: craig butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 11:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is time for the federal government to step aside and allow
one of our country's most dynamic companies of the 20th/21st century
to get back on track and move forward. Too much time and money has
been wasted over the past few years. I am hopeful the settlment is
finalized.
Thank you.
Craig Butler
Danville, KY
MTC-00008543
From: The Shaw's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
Please don't spend any more of my money (Tax dollars) on
litigation aginst microsoft. Take the deal and lets get the economy
moving again.
Jason Shaw
MTC-00008544
From: Richard Cote
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my judgment that the whole Microsoft fiasco has gone on
for far too long. While the proposed settlement may not be
satisfactory to everyone, it has one distinct advantage. It will put
an end to this ill advised litigation which I believe has played a
large role in the downtrend in our markets, and especially in the
technology sector. What is it about hard fought competition that
seems to grate on certain members of the community?
While Microsoft may be far from perfect, as I know from
experience with all of the various iterations of Windows, it has
opened the world of computing to the world, and always at what I
would consider to be a reasonable price. It's time to get this
behind us and let the world of business and industry get back on
track. Please end this litigation and accept the proposed
settlement. Anything less will be an invitation to a further
deterioration of our economy, and more possible damage to Microsoft,
one of the bulwarks of our technological superiority in the world.
I write this as a retired lawyer and business executive who has
never been involved with Microsoft except as a customer and stock
holder. But then, I own more stock in Sun Microsystems, so I am not
prejudiced in either direction, except to say that as a result of
this ill advised adventure, I'm on the losing end of both stocks.
Sincerely yours,
Richard P. Cote
2008 Calle Candela
Fullerton, CA 92833
714-871-3841
MTC-00008545
From: mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Case
Summary: Microsoft is not the predator. It has used violence
against no one. It is the victim. Leave the peaceful Microsoft
Corporation alone and apply your smears and name-calling to some one
who deserves it: those damn terrorists who brought down the WTC.
This would truly be a historic act of justice. ***
Here are my views on the Microsoft case: Some years ago in 1999,
I turned on my television to witness the frightening spectacle of
one of Janet Reno's henchman giggling like a terrorist who had just
blown up an American embassy. The source of his pleasure-and my
displeasure-was his apparent ``victory'' against a giant
``predator'' that had ``hurt'' competitors and ``exploited''
consumers. Who was this ``predator''?
An anarchist who tried to overthrow the Puerto Rican government?
A ``pro-lifer'' who firebombed an abortion clinic? A ``murderer''
wanted in sixteen states?
No, the so-called ``predator'' was American businessman Bill
Gates and the Microsoft Corporation, creator of the world's best-
selling personal computer operating system: Microsoft Windows.
Is Microsoft a ``predator'' as the Department of Justice
insinuates? A predator is someone like Adolph Hitler who kills
people in concentration camps, or a member of the mafia who hunts
down a neighborhood businessman for not obeying his wishes. A
predator is someone who *initiates* the use of physical force.
Microsoft has pointed a gun at no one. Clearly, a far stronger case
for predatory acts can be made against the Department of Justice--
who seeks to violate Microsoft's rights by taking control over its
property--than for the make-believe ``predatory'' acts Microsoft is
accused of.
Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory,
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft
earned its position in the free-market. All real monopolies are the
result of the government giving a business a ``monopoly''--exclusive
control of a given market by outlawing the entry of competitors.
Free competition is not some
Marxist, egalitarian, ``perfect'' ideal where all competitors
end up with an equal market share of a given industry. Whether in
sports, or in business, the whole point of competition is to beat
your competitors-even to the point of having them going out of
business. Bigness should not be confused
[[Page 25036]]
with monopolistic; size is not a criterion of wrongdoing; success is
not a crime.
Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? Innovation is the process of
discovering a better way to do things. No private business can stop
other companies from innovating except by out-innovating them, or by
buying them out (in the which case the buyer would want the acquired
company to innovate even more). The only way to halt innovation is
by the threat of physical force, which is a legal power that only
governments possess.
Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its competitors? This sloppy
metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the government has the legal power
to twist-and even break-arms. The only ``twisting'' Microsoft
engaged in was the legitimate practice of setting the terms of sale
for its property. By what stretch of the imagination, does the
Department of Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's
refusal to license its products to vendors who do not accept its
terms? This is not coercion because if a vendor refuses Microsoft's
offer and walks away (and he is free to), the vendor will be no
worse off then if he did not deal with Microsoft in the first place.
For a real example of ``arm-twisting'' see what happens when you
refuse to hand over half your income to the IRS this April.
Did Microsoft ``hurt'' competitors like Netscape by giving away
a free Internet browser with its Windows operating system (when
Netscape wanted to charge you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's
bundles its meat patties with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the
bread makers. Such actions may frustrate their competitors wishes,
but their rights are left untouched.
Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the
application of the political principle of individual rights to the
economic realm of production and trade that gives rise to the rules
of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated the
rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
Yet, in the name of ``protecting'' competition, it is these
inalienable rights that the antitrust process ignores in favor of
such subjective considerations as the ``public interest'' (which
fails to include the interests of the millions of members of the
public who do not side with the Department of Justice), the
``consumer interest'' (which the Department of Justice has awarded
itself the title of official spokesperson for), and ``relevant
markets'' (the government defines the relevant market small enough
so that Microsoft becomes a monopoly, even though Microsoft
comprises less then 4% of the computer industry). Such
``protection'' is tantamount to helping a man to see by thrusting
burning coals into his eyes.
By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of
considerations, such as the ``public interest,'' the antitrust laws
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property
against use it against Microsoft's interests. Thanks to the
antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily classified a business as
a ``monopoly'', the government is given free rein to: plunder of
vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account (through triple
fines for so-called ``damages''); replace Bill Gates with a
government ``overseer'' who will make the important strategic
decisions at Microsoft; force Microsoft to advertise and distribute
its competitor's products; compel Microsoft to give up its ``trade
secrets'' and intellectual property to those who condemn it. From
start to finish the entire antitrust process is no more than a
process of sacrificing successful American businesses-such as
Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil--on the guillotine of
egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to quote Alan
Greenspan, who upon a complete examination of the theory and history
of the antitrust laws wrote that ``.the effective purpose, the
hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the
United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and
efficient members of our society because they are productive and
efficient.''
The truth of the matter is that Microsoft is not the predator;
Microsoft is the victim. The real predators are the bureaucrats in
the Department of Justice when acting according to the antitrust
laws, second-rate competitors-like Sun, Novell, and Netscape--who
seek to profit from the government's actions (what do they think
will happen when the government under the antitrust laws deems them
``too successful'' in their ``relevant market''?), and the anti-
capitalist intellectuals who support them. Businessmen like Bill
Gates are the one group of minorities that best symbolize the
American way of life: that of a free, rational, moral society.
Leave the peaceful Microsoft Corporation alone and apply your
smears and name-calling to some one who deserves it: those damn
terrorists who brought down the WTC. This would truly be a historic
act of justice
Regards,
Mark Da Cunha
Publisher
http://www.CapitalismMagazine.com/
MTC-00008546
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I am amore than a little tired of the antics that have been
going on regarding the Microsoft litigation. I doubt the suit
brought against them has saved me a dime on software. I know it has
cost me about $70,000 in the price of my Microsoft stock. I am 72
yeas old and I do not need that kind of help. I have been using
computers since the TI 44A was considered the latest deck top PC for
the home. I have never had to buy anything I did not wish to nor
been stopped from buying what I wanted because of Microsoft's
marketing. I have tried other operating systems and found them
lacking in what I wanted to do. I have since come back to Microsoft
because for me they have a better system. Never because I was
forced.
I use AOL as a Internet because I have liked it. If I change it
will be because I try something else and like it better.
As I see it the people who brought the suit, did it for there
own monitory gain and not for the benefit of the public consumer.
It is about time this suit is brought to a close so that things
can get back to normal.
Of course the lawyers would like to drag it on for ever. That is
how they get there pockets full.
David J.Eason
225 Newport Drive
Palm Springs California
92264
MTC-00008547
From: Susan Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't see how Microsoft can possibly be called a monopoly.
Anyone can use any software they choose.
Microsoft just built the best that is available. I used to use
Netscape.....I don't any more but no one twisted my arm. I think
this entire scheme is ridiculous and a slam for the entrepreneurial
spirit. Why don't you go after the post office, cable company,
garbage companies or phone companies? The post office is obviously a
monopoly (government operated) and each of the other companies has
their own territory in which to operate.....no one else is allowed.
Susan Smith
MTC-00008549
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding the proposed settlement in this case, I feel very
strongly that it should go forward as is.
The reasons that this suit was initially filed were poor from
the onset. There was a lot of political influence exerted by the
previous administration in bowing to some major contributors who
just happened to be in competition with Microsoft. Now, after a more
enlightened review by the current administration of the previous
legal processes that took place, a settlement has been proposed and
accepted by Microsoft DOJ. There remains, however, an intense degree
of partisan political pressure by Attorneys General of certain
states to try to get into Microsoft's pockets. This, in my humble
opinion, is the true reason why those states are not agreeing with
the settlement. I would like to go on record as stating that I think
that Microsoft has been the single most effective driving force in
the ``computer revolution'' of late twentieth century. It, by virtue
of its programs and technology, has put the power of personal
computing into the hands of the people in a simple, straightforward
and eminently usable fashion. Microsoft products, most importantly
Windows and Internet Explorer, have enabled the general populace to
partake in and to become part of the greatest information flow that
this world had ever seen.
I have, from the very inception of the DOJ suit, felt that the
suit was unfair, that it was ill-conceived, and that it was totally
unnecessary. Microsoft has done nothing
[[Page 25037]]
wrong in its actions. They are a good business and have acted
aggressively to sell, to enhance and to protect their excellent
products. Microsoft has been successful because of those efforts and
its products. No one has been or even now is forced to use them. I
think that the proprietary information that has been developed by
Microsoft for its operation systems should remain just that:
proprietary. Those competitors who have ``suffered'' have done so
because of the inadequacies of their competing systems and programs.
The truth of the matter is that they need to give the consumer/PC
user a better product if they wish to succeed. That's the basis of
business success in this country.
On the other hand, the greatest business foibles have occurred
wherever and whenever the government has gotten involved in
business, productivity and efficiency, areas in which it has no
history of proficiency. One just needs to look at some of the
government regulations that have been imposed upon business under
the mistaken guise of ``helping the consumer.'' A good (and
appropriate) example is the ``new and improved'' water-saving toilet
promulgated and forced into use by the previous administration-----
you know, the ones that use one-third less water, but that you have
to flush three times to have them work properly. Amazing! Al Gore
and Ms. Browner have earned a very special place in history for that
one.
Let this settlement go forward as agreed and approved. Enough is
enough. I am a consumer who has NOT been hurt in any way by
Microsoft. As a matter of fact, I have been helped to an immense
degree, and I personally feel that Microsoft should be honored, not
sued.
Edward J. Brofka
2103 Norman Road
Marion, IL 62959
MTC-00008550
From: swingingclub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement is just and fair
Dear Counsel:
I am please to hear that Microsoft, Inc. has agreed to reach a
settlement with the US Justice Department. I do not feel it is in
either parties interest to have protracted litigation in this anti-
trust lawsuit. As we all know full well that litigation means time
and expense of resources for all parties involved and no one wins
and hard feelings are the end product.
At the beginning, and it is still my belief that Microsoft did
not violate any anti-trust laws. Microsoft is a highly competitive
company in its industry similar to Wal-mart. There is no law that
prohibits a company from being competitive. When the matter is
evaluated on the basis of economic of scales, the dynamics does
favor Microsoft because of its unlimited intellectual resources to
create and develop new technologies into the foreseeable future.
Microsoft should not be hindered by other companies who do not
have the means to compete. Further, it has been wrongfully argued
that Microsoft has prohibited other entities from competing in the
computer industry by anti-competitive tactics. Most of the arguments
are based on hypothesis which do not take into consideration the
dynamics of economics. It can be safely argued that the companies
who object to the settlement are less competitive than Microsoft.
Those companies do not and will not ever have the resources that
Microsoft has obtained through its creative skills.
Factually, each company that has opposed the settlement
(Gateway, Inc.) is functioning on a less than favorable financial
tread. Gateway has erroneously argued that the settlement will cause
harm to the organization because the donation of computers to
schools will cut into their business profits. Factually, Gateway
financial problems started long before this proposed settlement was
conceived.
Someone need to review Gateway's financial sheet. In the
financial community, Gateway has not met its profit projections of
the last three quarters of last year. Its biggest rival is Dell
Computer which is the reason why Gateway is having financial
difficulty.
The US Department of Justice should look at the economic impact
that a lawsuit against Microsoft will have on the US economy. It
will not be favorable. The nine or so state attorney generals that
oppose the settlement should also take note of the fact that a
lawsuit against Microsoft will most certainly impact the US economy
negatively. I will argue that to oppose the proposed settlement is
nothing less than a self-serving posture which amounts to greed. It
appears that those states are seeking specific money compensation.
This suit is unlike a tobacco law suits where human life was taken
because of a defective product.
Microsoft has agreed in principle to stop practices which would
cause other companies harm in competition. In addition, Microsoft
has agreed to assist other organizations in competition. The states
that opposed the settlement have not taken into consideration the
good will and philanthropic generosity of the Gates Foundation which
has given millions of dollars in charitable donations. I would
propose that in the event those states who continue to pursue the
course of opposing the fair and just settlement of Microsoft has
agreed to enter into with the US Justice Department should be cut
off from any form of grants or philanthropic gifts by the Gates
Foundation and Microsoft.
I would suggest to the Honorable Court to accept the settlement
agreement that the US Justice Department and Microsoft, Inc. have
entered into on the basis that the settlement is fair and just for
America. Protracted litigation should be avoided by any means
necessary because it will be a waste of valuable resources.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas P. Johnson, III
MTC-00008551
From: Gary Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let Microsoft alone. The special interest groups are
served enough. Let Microsoft continue to give us a good product at a
fair price. The marketplace can decide if the Microsoft is doing the
right thing.
GDawson
MTC-00008552
From: Paul Kessler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement, as now agreed to between Microsoft and the
Justice Department, should be approved. Microsoft has been
persecuted by its competitors. Microsoft's conduct has been
beneficial to the consumer. It's products are superior to those of
it's competitors and they are using every means at their disposal to
hurt Microsoft.
Paul T. Kessler, Jr.
11651 Hidden Valley Rd.
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
MTC-00008553
From: Roy Schweiker
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney. [email protected]. us@inet...
Date: 1/4/02 12:25am
Subject: proposed Microsoft $1 billion payment
Gentlemen:
I am distressed that the government is prepared to accept
Microsoft's offer to supply $1 billion in kind to poor schools as
partial settlement. By guaranteeing Microsoft $1 billion in business
at whatever price it sets, you are perpetuating exactly the sort of
monopoly you are trying to end.
Instead, make Microsoft give the schools $1 billion in cash and
require that they issue vendor-neutral proposals for bids, which
would probably allow the schools to acquire double the computing
power. Alternatively, require Microsoft to provide $1 billion in
products valued at actual manufacturing cost, such as $6 for a pack
of CD-ROMs and $1 for a site license. That way every school and
every household in the country would get a free site license with
media for Windows and Office. Maybe that is a fair settlement after
all. Ro
y Schweiker, Concord NH [email protected]
CC:roy.schweiker@ juno.com@inetgw,aweber @cmp.com@inetg...
MTC-00008554
From: Lucio DiGiovanni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I cannot understand why Microsoft is getting most of what it
wanted out of this settlement. It seems as though Microsoft is
getting off easy, since George W Bush has taken office, From reading
the final judgement, How can this judgement be considered fair when
Apple Computer and Netscape Communications, Inc have both been
adversely affected by the actions of Microsoft. What corrective
action can be made after more than 10 years of destructive
monopolistic activity?
I believe that consumers have been hurt by not being allowed to
decide what browser they could use. I am affected EVERY DAY because
I cannot use Netscape at work because my Company has `standardized`
on IE. I have two browsers loaded on my
[[Page 25038]]
computer (Netscape and IE) at work because there are certain
internal websites that have specifically been modified to work with
IE only.
What kind of standard is in IE if it has web content that allows
a user to access a URL such as ``I:\directory\file''. This works OK
with IE but does not work on Netscape because it IS NOT A URL by
HTML standards approved by the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Netscape complains about this error but since most people
(Because they were forced to use IE) have no problem with this `URL`
access, it is not considered a problem and people are then confused
about what a URL is and continue to make non standard changes to web
sites that only work with a NON-Standard IE.
Sincerely frustrated,
Lucio DiGiovanni
MTC-00008555
From: DMiller909@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:28am
Subject: (no subject)
During the past several years I have followed the government/
Microsoft case.The competitors of Microsoft applied their pressure
and, in my opinion, the situation turned from legal to a political
situation.
The Attorney Generals, representing their respective states and
constituents (competitors of Microsoft) have set forth the claim
that the consumer has been hurt by the activities of Microsoft. Yet,
I, as a consumer, would love to know what damage has been caused to
me so that I would be able to compare it to the financial damage
caused by the shadows this case has cast over the financial market
The AG's pursue their ultimate desire which, in my opinion, would
ultimately satisfy the companies they have in their respective
States while the investors and the market continue being the victim.
Moreover, the economy of our nation has diminished in proportion to
the overall effect that the market has suffered.
My wife and I have made investments in Microsoft, Aol, Sun,
Cisco etc.,hoping to build a future financial support for our Great-
grand-children when it would be needed for their college education.
There is no doubt in my mind that numerous other parents and grand-
parents have invested with the same thought in mind. And, as long as
the uncertainty overshadows the market the multitude of persons
invested in the technology stocks will continue suffering the
financial loss that the case continues to create by causing ongoing
legal demands , by the AG's ,that surpass the final determination of
the federal government. The federal government and several States
have reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft. Why therefor
should the marketplace and the consumers be held hostage to the will
of competitors and the remaining attorney generals who insist upon
additional legal demands. Neither the consumers nor the overall
economy needs further uncertainty It is time to put this matter to
rest.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Miller
MTC-00008556
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department:
Leave Mr. Gates and his company alone. He has committed no
crime; he deserves our praise and gratitude for his work. He has a
moral right to his work and his money. Antitrust laws are immoral
and design to crush the creative and honest. Cease your attacks on
him and his company.
Sincerely,
Ray Shelton
Glendale, CA
MTC-00008557
From: Jack Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:34 am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Public Comment by John A. Carroll
This comment is on the proposed settlement in U.S. vs.
Microsoft, and on the Remedial
Proposals by State of New York et al vs. Microsoft.
THE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE INTEREST My interest in the outcome of
this case is a consequence of my participation in the open source
software community. I'm a long-time user and advocate of the Linux/
GNU family of operating systems and related open source
applications; also, I'm a stockholder in Red Hat, Inc., a commercial
distributor of open source software. Antitrust legislation and
litigation concerns not only the direct parties in the case, but the
public interest as well. Obviously, the interests of the open source
community form a subset of the public interest, because that
community is part of the public. However, open source software and
its development are related to the interests of the general public
in a much closer way. Open source programming is fundamentally about
freedom. This body of software is developed largely by end users,
for the benefit of end users. Most open source projects encourage
anyone to contribute improvements. Also, anyone is at liberty to
start a new project and build on the existing body of open software.
The most common licenses encourage wide distribution of the fruits
of this open-ended collaboration. The nature of the open source
community makes it a powerful force against monopolism. It is
possibly the only body today able to offer the public serious
alternatives to Microsoft operating systems and office productivity
applications, and thus effectively counteract Microsoft's
unrelenting campaign to preserve and extend its monopoly. In certain
parts of the world a growing user base has already begun to abandon
Microsoft products in favor of open source replacements. Because of
the diversity of this community, it can have no single
representative able to speak for all. It is not a business, though
it includes businesses. It's not a private club, though it includes
a great number of local users' groups. Its most productive
components, the ``projects'', usually don't have even that amount of
organization; they're geographically dispersed teams of volunteer
programmers sharing source code over the internet, who prefer to
give their attention to the programs they have a need for, rather
than and unwanted apparatus of officers and treasuries. University
research programs and undergraduate programming classes are
involved, and many of the customs and practices derive from the open
traditions of academic research. A great deal has been accomplished
by unaffiliated individuals. Thus, different members of this
community will contribute different perspectives to this public
issue. DEFECTS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND REMEDIAL PROPOSALS The
remedies in the proposed settlement are written around ``ISVs, IHVs,
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs''--all business entities (section I).
Developers and suppliers of open source software are neither
mentioned nor contemplated. Indeed, section J paragraph 2 speaks of
``reasonable business needs'' and ``authenticity and viability of
its business''.
``ISV'' is counter-intuitively defined to be a supplier of a
software product that runs on a Windows Operating System product -
thereby excluding a supplier of a software product that runs on a
non-Microsoft operating system, or a supplier of a non-Microsoft
operating system. The information to be disclosed to non-Microsoft
entities includes APIs, protocols, and documentation for middleware
(section D). It does not include user data file formats used by
applications. The language of section I could reasonably be
interpreted to assert intellectual property rights to any
information which is not specifically required to be disclosed; that
could be used to restrict the analysis and documentation by
outsiders of an application's external behavior, or the use of
information they have already compiled by behavioral analysis. That
would have profound implications; in effect, it would manipulate the
Court into restoring and strengthening an application monopoly which
the open source community has already broken. These are not
accidental oversights. These provisions are carefully crafted to
exclude open source software developers from access to the technical
information necessary to make their creations interoperable with
Microsoft systems and application software.
Several open source operating systems have fully demonstrated
their readiness for the most demanding commercial service. Open
source office productivity applications have matured to a point
where their relative merits compared to Microsoft equivalents are as
much a matter of opinion and taste as objective fact. Star Office /
Open Office, in particular, has achieved a high degree of
interoperability with Microsoft Office file formats.
Now the struggle between Microsoft and the open source community
is converging on offering end users the freedom to migrate their
existing document and data files from proprietary Microsoft formats
to next-generation open-standard replacements. This migration
process relies heavily on ``filters'', which are utility programs
that convert one file format to another. Historically, open source
projects have analyzed sample document files to deduce their
formatting, so that filters can be written. Once these filters
exist, end users can migrate to a different
[[Page 25039]]
application package at will without losing their investment in their
data. Equally, users of non-Microsoft applications can put their
work into formats that Microsoft applications can read and edit.
Microsoft's most important weapon to obstruct end-user defection and
prevent the emergence of a level playing field is the obscurity of
the file formats used by its office applications. If they can
continually change their file formats to break compatibility, then
deny access to the revised format information by a combination of
secrecy and legal measures, they can erect high barriers against
migration to non-Microsoft applications, or exchanging document
files with users of non-Microsoft applications and operating
systems. This is a powerful anticompetitive tactic.
Why agree to share information with certain businesses, but not
with open source developers? Because Microsoft has a long history of
success in buying out or smothering commercial suppliers of any
product that endangers its monopoly position--it has every reason to
be confident of its ability to continue the same proven strategy.
Those methods don't work against open source developers. These
developers aren't carrying the weight of a business, so they don't
need revenue--therefore there's no way to cut off their resources.
Legal harassment is impractical, because they're scattered through
hundreds of jurisdictions with radically different legal systems,
some of which are promoting open source software as a matter of
national security policy. Their code is released under licenses that
make monopolization virtually impossible. Their distribution costs
are negligible. Their archives are duplicated and backed up all
around the world. And because anybody with a computer and a modem
can participate at will, their numbers, productivity, and code
quality are far beyond any business's ability to match.
Section B applies only to ``Covered OEMs'', which are defined to
be only the 20 largest-volume OEMs. This leaves Microsoft
considerable room to impose discriminatory terms and rates on all
its other customers, and thus penalize any behavior it wants to
discourage. Smaller OEMs are the ones most likely to respond to end
users' requirements and preferences -such as offering customers a
choice of Microsoft, non-Microsoft, dual-boot, or no pre-installed
software. Section C says nothing about adjusting royalties when
Microsoft middleware is replaced by non-Microsoft middleware, or
simply deleted.
New York et al's Remedial Proposals offer important
improvements. Their section B paragraph 2-ii contains the important
phrase ``actual volume of total shipments of the licensed
products'', meaning that Microsoft is paid only for Microsoft
products shipped, and not the total number of computers shipped by
the OEM including those on which Microsoft products are not
installed. This is a critical issue to the open source community,
since it removes an economic barrier to offering a choice of
software to the OEM's customers--and to offering machines without
software to those who prefer to do their own installations or boot
from the local network. They do not, however, propose to provide
open source developers with the same external interface information
as business entities, nor do they include application file formats
among the information to be disclosed except indirectly by
interpretation of a definition (section C paragraph 4). Also, in
their provisions for interoperability, they discuss middleware but
not applications; this effectively protects only suppliers of
software that runs on Microsoft operating systems.
They do propose to force Microsoft to open-source Internet
Explorer. Other open source users and developers may disagree with
me about this, but I don't believe that would be useful at this late
date. Open source versions of Netscape and its successor Mozilla are
already the dominant browsers on open source operating systems.
Nearly four years of work have been invested in bringing the
original commercial source code up to the standards of open source
projects, so that substantive progress can now be made. Most of the
commercially-produced Netscape code had to be discarded and
rewritten from scratch. It's unlikely that a development team could
be assembled that would be willing to undertake similar remedial
work on Internet Explorer. In general, open source developers would
have little interest in looking at Microsoft source code. It's the
external behavior that's important for interoperability, not the
internal design.
They propose to make the porting of Microsoft Office to some
non-Microsoft operating systems mandatory. This is interesting, in
that it could become a stepping stone for Microsoft users to abandon
Windows first and Office later, rather than attempting both changes
at once. Several years ago most of the open source community would
have been interested in porting Office, but the work on replacements
is far advanced now. It's of interest that the latest version of the
only non-Microsoft OS which runs Office now is Mac-OS X, which is
actually a commercial Unix operating system underneath the Macintosh
user interface. Thus, this version of Office uses Unix APIs. Most
non-Microsoft operating systems with any significant popularity
today are derived from Unix (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX,
Linux, GNU Hurd, SCO Unix); thus, it would be relatively easy to
write the Mac-OS source code according to recognized Unix
portability standards, so that it would compile on any Unix
platform. However, the language of the proposal is so vague on what
the target operating systems would be, that Microsoft could choose
BeOS, OS/2, and Plan 9, thus frustrating the intent.
Section L of the Remedial Proposals is of great importance to
open source software. Open source software achieves much of the
interoperability among its components and applications by adherence
to published formal standards. Interoperability between Microsoft
and non-Microsoft systems and applications is essential to creating
a level playing field. Thus, requiring Microsoft to be truthful in
its claims to standards compliance promotes competition and user
choice. It is also important that definitions of ``standard'' and
``de facto standard'' are provided, since Microsoft has a history of
misusing these terms for deceptive marketing purposes.
PROPOSED REMEDIES
1. In section D, ``shall disclose to...'' should be changed to
``shall publish''. This would place all software developers on an
equal footing, and make crucial interoperability information
available to open-source developers working without the financial
support of a business. In the same section ``APIs and related
Documentation'' should read ``APIs, file formats, communication
protocols, and related Documentation''; and ``or Microsoft
applications to store and communicate user data'' should added
following ``Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windoww
Operating Systems Product''. This makes explicit the requirement to
publish application file formats and network protocols. From the
view-point of the open source community, enforcing these two
requirements is the central issue of the whole case, and the key to
breaking the monopoly once and for all. The requirement to disclose
application file formats is implied in the Remedial Proposals'
definition of ``API'', but leaving it less than airtight invites
tactical litigation and delay. The burden of any such litigation
would probably fall on the State Attorneys-General, because nobody
in the open source community has the financial resources to take on
Microsoft in court.
2. The Remedial Proposals forbid Microsoft from using agreements
or retaliation to discourage OEMs from installing non-Microsoft
operating systems alongside Windows and allowing the user to control
which system is booted. Microsoft should also be prohibited from
taking technical measures against multi-booting. It wouldn't be
difficult to modify Windows to malfunction in the presence of a non-
Microsoft boot loader, intentionally corrupt or overwrite the boot
loader, or fail after partition re-sizing.
REFERENCES
On the history and nature of open source software: ``The
Cathedral and the Bazaar'' by Eric S. Raymond, http://
www.tuxedo.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar On the licensing of
free and open source software: the General Public License (``GPL'')
by Richard M. Stallman, http://www.fsf.org/licenses/
licenses..html#TOCGPL On the place of business within the open
source community, ``Under the Radar'' by Robert Young and Wendy
Rohm, http://www.redhat.com/radar.html
John A. Carroll
77 Musket Dr.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-1442
MTC-00008558
From: Margaret Baecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am writing in support of the proposed settlement agreement
with Microsoft that would provide technology funds, computers
[[Page 25040]]
and software to schools in low-income communities. The State of
Wisconsin would benefit from the technology funds. Our state falls
below the national average in the percentage of 4th-8th grade
students in schools that have computers available in all classrooms.
In addition, about one half of Wisconsin Education Association
Council members feel that they have adequate training to operate
computers and software in their schools. Less than half of these
teachers feel that they get technology training, provided by their
schools, to integrate technology into curriculum. The additional
funding for teacher training in technology would be beneficial for
smaller school districts, such as mine, which are feeling the
effects of decreased state funding to meet operating expenses. In
many cases, there is only limited revenue to provide technology
training. Needless to say, computer and telecommunication
technologies are important educational tools in our schools.
Computer literacy is an educational goal in our schools, providing
students with technology skills that are needed to meet the learning
requirements for future jobs. No student or teacher should be denied
the opportunity to become computer-literate. The proposed Microsoft
Settlement is most positive, and certainly would benefit students,
teachers, and schools that need technology funding the most.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Margaret Baecker
Independence Public School
23786 Indee Blvd.
Independence, WI 54747
MTC-00008559
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies, Gentlemen:
I am writing to support the settlement of the Microsoft case as
it stands today. While I cannot even agree with the pursuit of the
case in the first case, regardless, it has occurred. First and
foremost, Microsoft is not a monopoly.
Microsoft has created the ability for the average person to use
the personal computer. Prior to Microsoft's comprehensive programs
for work, together with their operating systems, the use of the
personal computer was a perilous and cumbersome time.
I have been a user of the personal computer from the early
1980's. At that time, with DOS as the standard, loading a new
program was an arduous task not to mention the ``risk'' you had in
merely turning off your computer incorrectly. Missteps in either of
these operations could have easily rendered your PC hopelessly
``crashed''. At that time, an expensive ``consultant'' was the only
resolution to recovery of your PC tool.
Microsoft changed that through its integrated systems. Apple did
not do it. Oracle did not do it. IBM did not do it. Microsoft did
it. There system is not perfect. There ``capture'' of the market is
not perfect. However, they have done nothing that any other
visionary company could not have done. This witch hunt of a legal
proceeding is an atrocity and a fierce challenge to the way America
has become what it is--the place where innovation is rewarded, and a
better mousetrap universally purchased and used by the average
citizen. The expert mouse catcher, such as my cat George, will never
be interested in the tool that is available to us average users.
Finish this proceeding at the earliest time. Settle this case
now. Let Microsoft and the American inventor and visionary proceed
with the next great idea that will fuel the American and world
economy to new and greater heights.
Thank you.
James E. Puckett
707 Alondra NW
Albuquerque, NM 87114
[email protected]
505 897 1040
MTC-00008560
From: Alan Grose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement that has been reached is fair and
equitable and should be appoved.
MTC-00008561
From: Robert H. Fleck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen.....
Please settle with Microsoft. The proposed settlement is fair.
This whole case has been going on for far too long. The industry has
changed so much since the case was brought to trial that it is no
longer important.
Settle and be done with it.....
MTC-00008562
From: Susan Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:59am
Subject: settlement
I am glad the suits were filed. Microsoft was getting out of
line. They should not be allowed to dictate how other companies run
their business. I feel the settlement was enough to ask Microsoft to
pay, and that unless they get way out of line again, they should be
left to do their thing, without further penalty. Microsoft is very
important to the US economy, and is trying to be a better corporate
citizen, as I see it. I believe they have ``learned their lesson''.
Their products are truly getting better, and I buy them happily now,
not begrudgingly, like I did in the past, because there was no
choice.
MTC-00008563
From: Evangeline Burtch-Farrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Will You PLEASE leave Microsoft alone to do what it does best
(innovate and create for all of us) and move on to some REAL issues
of injustice. Enough already.
E. Burtch-Farrell
MTC-00008564
From: N. Hagan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case, as soon as possible. It is an
ugly remnant of the last (corrupt) DoJ and one that need not
continue. The states who oppose it need to be overruled. There is no
value to the market, to the economy or to Microsoft's erstwhile
competitors in continuing. Microsoft's so-called competitors (and
the real impetus behind this suit) will fail no matter how many
advantages they are given. Don't use anti-trust law to reward
inferior companies with overpriced products that the consumer has
long ago rejected, of their own accord.
Innovation is alive and well in this industry. Open Source
projects, IBM, Apple, Netscape all are still here and they prosper.
Microsoft never stifled innovation, it stopped inferior overpriced
companies (Like SUNW) from preying on less sophisticated consumers.
How? By giving them *choice. End the insanity now.
MTC-00008565
From: Dave Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that the Tunney Act, and resulting Microsoft
Settlement, should be completed as soon as possible. It has always
been my view that Microsoft has been persecuted for the heinous
crime of being ahead of it's time--nothing more. Their ability to
outthink and move faster than the competition, and the resulting
financial gains, are all they're guilty of. Microsoft has generously
agreed to settle, so let's settle and be done with this dirty
business.
Dave Steele
P.O. Box 103
Tryon, OK 74875
918 374-2682
MTC-00008566
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:21am
Subject: SETTLEMENT
COMPANIES THAT STRIVE TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPLYING A
PRODUCT THAT PEOPLE WANT SHOULD BE REWARDED AND NOT DRAGGED THROUGH
COURT BECAUSE THE COMPETITION CANNOT KEEP UP.
[email protected]
MTC-00008567
From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/4/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end the lawsuits against MSFT. Everyone benefits from the
great software innovations made at low cost to the consumer. All
great businesses have high barriers to entry by competition... that
is good not bad.
MTC-00008568
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
All charges against Microsoft should be dropped. They have
provided goods and
[[Page 25041]]
services which consumers have voluntarily purchased. No monopoly can
exist in a voluntary, free market.
Don McKee
3165 Sierra Dust Court
Sparks, NV. 89436
MTC-00008569
From: Bill Lesnjak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Friends,
The proposed settlement is appropriate, fair, and beneficial to
all concerned, particularly to the American public of which I write
as a member of.
Microsoft's contributions to our society have dwarfed many of
others; please, let's settle this matter and go on to the future!
Will Lesnjak,
S-4067 Chicken Hollow Rd.,
Hillsboro,WI 54634
[email protected]
MTC-00008570
From: Marc Alexander Toppel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Reader,
I do not know who is reading this, but I hope you to be a
rational, freedom loving person--someone who's main goal in life is
too retain justice in a world that has become devoid of it. It is
with this said that I must describe the reasons why the Microsoft
Antitrust Case is nothing but wrong for various reasons.
I know the main purpose of antitrust laws. They are pragmatic at
best. They hope to make things better for the whole society.
However, we live in a country that was founded on principles of
justice, blind of how it might affect others. If habeus corpus was
stricken from our constitution, I'm sure the judicial system would
be alot more streamlined, but would it be just? If we took away
people's inborn right to speek freely, the government would no
longer have to deal with opposing viewpoints and more things could
be accomplished, but is it right? A dictator could come in and
implement a system with which every aspect of our lives were managed
for the good of society, yet dosen't that vanquish our right to make
our own decisions in life, bad or good? For everything that you do,
think not of what the practical implications may be, please think of
what is right.
With that knowledge in mind, I must proclaim to you that anti-
trust actions fall short of practical. I myself do not have the
economics no-how to explain this to you, but I have come across
countless essays documenting the benefits of a laissez-faire world.
I will leave such things to the more qualified experts. I do,
however, stand with the faculties to defend Microsoft morally. They
created their products. Consumers decided they liked them. Companies
began to recognize this so THEY DECIDED to enter contracts with
Microsoft to use their products. Competitors volunteered to compete
against Microsoft, yet some failed either because they created
inferior products or they lacked the long term planning necessary to
establish brand recognition and relability. If you'll notice,
everything here was done VOLUNTARILY. No one forced anyone to do
anything. Customers were free to buy or not buy products. Companies
were free to sign or not sign contracts. Competitiors were free to
create better or worse products.
Do not mess up this free society and force Microsoft to adhere
to your beliefs, for if you do, we become one step closer to a
totalitarian regime. However, If you drop the case and subsequently
remove antitrust laws from the books, we stay that much closer to
the place that our fore fathers envisioned so long ago.
Thank you for your time,
Marc Toppel, age 18
[email protected]
936-441-6575
10 Baron's Place
Conroe, Texas 77304
MTC-00008571
From: Orrilla Blanpied
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs, we wish to preserve the rights of Microsoft to innovate,
continue research and development and protect their rights to the
development of their original ideas.
Microsoft has contributed revolutionary technology for the huge
growth and developemnt of our country !! Protect it !!
O.Blanpied [email protected]
MTC-00008572
From: Dick (038) Bev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe this has gone on long enough and most of the lawyers
can retire now with this prolonged lawsuit. It is my opinion that
the lawsuit be settled once and for all and let the innovative
spirit of this product continue. Our economy in the pacific
northwest needs this company and the jobs they provide and this
country needs more Bill Gates and less lawsuits that have tied up
this country long enough.
Beverly Davidson, Taxpayer.
MTC-00008573
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:47am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I fully support the settlement as reached and believe it to be
in everyone's best interests, as both a stockholder and a user of
microsoft products.
Dr. Judi Bloom Hauswirth and Dennis Hauswirth
MTC-00008574
From: Joe Testerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:20 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement offer proposed in the DOJ v. Microsoft case is
more than reasonable and this litigation should finally be brought
to a conclusion. I am very concerned that special interest groups
continue their agenda of pushing for the break-up of one of
America's largest companies. I find this type of agenda unacceptable
and way beyond reason.
Please accept the current settlement proposal and put a stop to
this long overrun issue. It's time for America to get back to
business and to continue our focus of competing in the new global
economy. Thank you for your time and courtesy in this regard.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Testerman, II
13208 Myford Road #343
Tustin, CA 92782
(714) 832-5851
MTC-00008575
From: Sophie Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft Settlement has now been decided and must be
allowed to go forward.
The States, especially California, which have chosen to proceed
with their suits are just grandstanding. The money they propose to
use in this pursuit could be better used to help house and feed the
homeless, provide better mental health services, repair roads, etc.,
rather than being thrown down a rat hole.
It is time that our public officials stop their waste of our
money--give up the vendetta against Microsoft--and be prepared to be
accountable!
S. Fox
MTC-00008576
From: Halle Doucoupolis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:31am
Subject: microsoft settlement
This is to let you DOJ folks know that as one of the general
public I think your behavior towards microsoft is just shameful. The
great american dream has absolutely no meaning anymore if you people
keep this farce of a lawsuit going. Where in the world does it say a
person can't realize their dream, become the richest person in the
whole wide world and still be happy? What makes you people think
that you are right by trying to tell this person he can't keep the
secrets of his success SECRET? That he HAS to remake HIS company to
suit someone else just because that other company wants to dig
around in his company business. It's not fair, right or American. If
this is the way you people treat success it's no wonder the majority
of the third world hates our guts. It's no wonder the little guy
(like me) can never get ahead. After all what do we have to look
forward to?
Maryalice Anderson, A.A.S,; paralegal; LPN
Halle Doucopolis,A.A.S.; paralegal; LPN
Amanda Gates
Ameenah Rasheed
DBA:
4Black Women With Voices/Point Inc.
MTC-00008577
From: (u)nasturtium
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
[[Page 25042]]
I strongly believe that it would not be in the public interest
to pursue the current anti trust case against Microsoft Corporation
any further, but rather accept the Revised Final Judgement (dated
6th November 2001). I believe it is a waste of public funds,
especially in light of the September 11 tragedy, to spend more on
this already tough yet fair judgement.
The Revised Final Judgement, Section IVa, 2a states ``Access
during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code,
books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of
Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any matters
contained in this Final Judgment.'' These powers will inevitably be
misused in ways to benefit competitors eg disclosure of source code
of Windows Platform software, product direction etc. I dutifully
suggest this clause be removed in the public interest. Section III,
``Prohibited Conduct'', extensively covers actions Microsoft may not
take against OEMs (defined as ``an original equipment manufacturer
of Personal Computers that is a licensee of a Windows Operating
System Product''). This, I believe is an unnecessary and unfair
power. OEM software is sold at a lower price to OEMs, and ultimately
consumers. OEM software is released at the discretion of Microsoft
(in line with academic and other subsidised versions) and Microsoft
should be able to choose it's condition of sale, as it will be of
economic benefit to consumers. Therefore, it is clear that Microsoft
is already bound sufficiently and further actions will result in
negative effects for purchasers of OEM software.
Thankyou for your time and consideration.
Please direct any comments to [email protected]
MTC-00008578
From: Vincent Avona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am pleased to see that a fair settlement has been reached
between the Federal and State governments. I trust we will no longer
have to continue waste our tax money and government time on further
litigation. It should have never started to begin with. Good luck
Microsoft. ``Let's Roll''
PS How about putting on the market more software compatible with
Mac OS!
MTC-00008579
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough already. The government has spent millions of taxpayer's
money on a ridiculous case against Microsoft and caused the company
to spend millions more to defend, which ultimately will cost the
consumer in higher prices to cover this litigation cost! Somehow,
over the years, the prices of computers have come down due to
competition and are now affordable by almost everyone. I don't see
how any consumer is being hurt.
Stop this silly witch hunt which is simply costing all of us in
the long run. Consumers are actually being harmed more by the cost
of the litigation than by anything done by Microsoft. I believe the
government is stifling progress. It is time to stop.
Morton L. Efron
MTC-00008580
From: E.J. Eiteljorge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I'd like to take just a moment to express my opinion on the
Microsoft persecution. I absolutely, 100%, completely, thoroughly
believe that the DOJ's pursuit of Microsoft is totally responsible
for the ``tech stock meltdown'' of the last roughly two years. The
amount of wealth lost by the average American investor, of which I
am one, dwarfs even that of Mr Gates, the intended target.
As such, I believe that a hasty settlement coupled with a
sincere apology directed to Microsoft, its stockholders and to the
average American investor is certainly in order.
Terrance J. Eiteljorge
Heidelberg Hospital
CMR 442, Box 990
APO AE 09042
MTC-00008581
From: David Winarsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
This lawsuit against a great American company is ridiculous. The
first lawsuit against the Bells did have merit, but in the end the
gov broke up the bells and now you have bad service.
I work for a Major retailer in the U.S. and sell both Microsoft
products and product from their competition, and I have to say that
the Microsoft Corp. goes all out and improves peoples lives, by
making their technology easy and affordable to use.
These lawsuits need to cease and we, as a nation need to come
together and pull this nation together.
Thank you,
David Winarsky
[email protected]
Boca Raton, Florida
MTC-00008582
From: Steve S. Scherping
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing you because I am extremely concerned about the
current state of the settlement concerning the Federal Government1s
case against Microsoft1s antitrust practices. I feel that harsher
penalties should take place. Take as an example, the recent offering
by Microsoft as a settlement for the private antitrust cases brought
against them. Not only do I believe this offer allows them to
continue their monopoly since they will be imposing more of the
software, operating systems, and hardware onto users, it also is
quite meager since the potential value is $1.1 billion, when they
readily have $36 is readily available capital. In this case, being a
monopoly, Microsoft also controls the value of its products so again
it is able to shorthand those involved in the settlement. I
understand that this does not directly relate to your case, but it
is deeply troubling that a company that is supposed to be punished,
in the end will probably come out the winner again. I am not a rogue
citizen that has a vendetta against Microsoft. Rather, I am an
experienced system administrator that utilizes Microsoft products on
a daily basis. In a university setting we are forced into pricing
schemes and meager product offerings from Microsoft since our
students are not capable of using other offerings since they
consistently use proprietary technology and also force developers
and manufacturers into sole platform support scenarios. Microsoft
continues to test its corporate boundaries by attempting to force
users into using their products. They also continue to alter known
standards into their own proprietary technology. Please continue
your efforts to halt the illegal business practices of Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Steve S. Scherping
Steve S. Scherping
Business: U of MN
Communications Technician
CLA Language Center
51 Folwell Hall
9 Pleasant St SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph. 612-626-0013
Gen. Ph. 612-624-6811
Email: [email protected]
Home: 810 Thornton St. SE, Apt. 1004
Minneapolis, MN 55414
[email protected]
http://umn.edu/home/scher037
http://www.ssstech.net
Steve's PGP Public Key may be found at
http://www.umn.edu/lookup?SET--INSTITUTION=
UMNTC&UID=scher037&show--pgp=1
MTC-00008583
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice,
The Federal Government and nine states along with Microsoft
Corporation have agreed to terms of a settlement. Shouldn't we honor
that? With the current turmoil in our country, let us ask, ``What
serves our nation best, both socially and economically?'' It seems
to me that upholding the proposed and agreed upon settlement is in
the best interest of our country and people. What is really to be
gained by dragging this case on for months or years. So if you value
any input from thoughts of an ordinary citizen of our country,
``Let's move on!'' Nine states and The Department of Justice and
Microsoft have agreed to this proposed settlement. As a teacher, our
students know that in a democracy, the majority of votes makes the
decision. Aren't we still going by those rules? Let's move on!
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter,
Gary Fine
[[Page 25043]]
MTC-00008584
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
3056 Rue D'Orleans
Apartment #138
San Diego, California 92110
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the
settlement that you and your colleagues at the Department of Justice
have worked so hard to negotiate in the Microsoft antitrust dispute.
The settlement is good for the technology industry and good for
the economy, both of which have taken a serious beating as a result
of this unfortunate three-year long legal battle between the two
parties. Anytime a settlement is reached, and extremely costly and
distracting litigation can be avoided, it is a good thing.
It seems that politics is the motivating factor behind this case
and that Microsoft's adversaries will stop at nothing to derail and
destroy Microsoft. These groups and individuals do not seem to
realize or care that they are hurting the entire U.S. economy in the
process.
The settlement ends Microsoft's status as a ``monopoly''. Since
this was the goal of the government in the first place and it has
clearly been met, Microsoft should be left alone and allowed to move
forward. It is time that our premier software company gets back to
innovating rather than litigating. Thank you for the work that you
have done on this settlement and for ensuring that no further legal
action will be taken against this American company.
Sincerely,
Judy Ames
MTC-00008585
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MICROSOFT [email protected],
The government should be more informed about the whole Microsoft
spectrum and not let politics interfere with any decisions it makes
to improve the existence of Microsoft in the entire community of the
computer world. Microsoft has a wonderful product in all the
versions of Windows and other products in provides to it's customers
but there is definitely a cloud of greed hovering over the company's
operation. One would think that the sales of their products would
produce enough revenue that the tech support would be provided to
it's clientele at no charge as many other very successful companies
do. Actually for Microsoft to charge for tech support could be
interpreted as monopolistic. Once the user goes into Microsoft
products it's very difficult to drop Windows and seek a replacement
elsewhere.
The exit option is not readily provided to leave a program
whenever one wants to. Then there is all the subliminal advertising
that is annoying. The criticism could go on and on but there
definitely should be some oversight by some honest, fully
knowledgeable and not political authority to give guidance to all
computer industry related companies.
Not tell a man how to run his company but when you create so
many billionaires off the backs of your customers who actually
support you with their sweat and blood is unconscionable. The
revenue is not apportioned properly in Microsoft so the blame is at
the top, the authority of the company. It is my hope as a long time
Microsoft user that the above remarks be seriously taken when it
comes time to finalize the settlement.
Sincerely,
Charles West
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008586
From: Dorothy G Randrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen: Please close this case, as a settlement has been
agreed upon. It is my strong desire to have Microsoft proceed with
the great work they have begun in the past few years.
Hoping for your cooperation, Sincerely, Dorothy G. Randrup 3728
E. Balch Ave. Fresno, CA 93702-2804
MTC-00008587
From: Steve Glass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:05am
Subject: gov. bogus lawsuit
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The justice dept. had no business trying to corner the Microsoft
Corp. in an illegal, totally bogus, politically motivated class
action lawsuit. Because Bill Gates has more brains than any of his
competitors is certainly no reason for his competitors to stage a
legal frenzy against him. This lawsuit shows the ignorance (and
jealousy) of many democratic politicians and Clinton. Heres the best
advice you're going to get from the AMERICAN PEOPLE : Drop the
lawsuit, apologize to Bill Gates, pay him back for all expenses and
then, GROW UP.
Stephen R. Glaze
Box 1196, Clearlake Oaks, Ca. 95423
MTC-00008588
From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/4/02 4:25am
Subject: USPS' Heidi Game
NBC preempted an Oakland Raiders / NY Jets game years ago during
a close contest for the network televised family classic, Heidi. The
sports world has never quite forgiven NBC for this gaffe, reminding
the football fans of the network's ``gatekeeper'' decision at the
time. Heidi French, Wells Fargo's Orange County based HR manager
hired me and was responsible for my work assignments during my
career at Wells Fargo.
Several times I attempted to relocate back to the Bay Area or
Los Angeles with Wells Fargo, due to the continuing family attacks
and corporate hazings / assaults in Irvine. I was constantly denied
a transfer, due to political and Norwest Financial / Wells Fargo
merger consolidations, and the fact that Wells Fargo wanted all of
my family's money and one of their selections as my ``mate''.
Apparently, the written request for my postal delivery hold at
the Aliso Viejo / Laguna Niguel, California Post Office is once
again creatively ignored. I have received three pieces of mail today
after repeated requests for postal service hold, due to mail
tampering. My mail was delivered to my home for two weeks after my
written request was presented to the Laguna Niguel Post Office after
I discovered mail tampering with my State Of California checks. I
time the check delivery through California's automated system that
details the date the check was mailed to me.
For one week, my mail was held for pickup at the Aliso Viejo
Postal Center (a carrier's processing facility and not a full
service post office). After one week, my mail delivery was resumed
without my permission, along with other family mail to 62 Trofello
in Aliso Viejo, CA.
On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, I contacted a carrier supervisor
at the AV Postal Center who found the California check and held it
for my pickup later in the day. The supervisor confirmed my request
for mail hold yesterday. Today, 01/03/02, I received three pieces of
red / pink color coded mail ... the first, a pink envelope from
Geico insurance services, the second, an unsolicited Seasons
Greetings from an unknown Japanese company named Strawberry
Corporation that went public in Japan in October 2001, and an
unsolicited red / white colored promotion for Homes And Gardens
Magazines courtesy of Spiegel Corporation.
Obviously someone is spending big bucks to pay off government
workers and others during the big money struggles of the Microsoft
Anti-Trust trial and related royalty issues I have detailed in
previous memos. The
USPS can hold my mail just like anyone else! Several additional
PAC comics yesterday and today detail the conspiracies. The
``Crankshaft'' comic spins around a fictional Ohio family and a
school bus driving ``grandfather' character, Crankshaft, a parody on
my father. In the late 1960s my father spearheaded a school bus
program in suburban Illinois with major opposition from church/
school members. Crankshaft yelled at his daughter for having a cold
(she was sneezing in the comic) and running around in ``socking''
feet. The abuse of the English language is a feature of
``Crankshaft''. Today the blond haired kid was featured in a jazz
band with Crankshaft and family in the audience.
``Crankshaft'', the grouchy one, complained about the ``Tune''!
Knowing my father's agenda and drive to place me in another music
performance role (which will never occur) these Ohio crazed authors
drew a foreplanned comic thinking I would go back to NBC Burbank and
the Tonight Show again this week after the New Year's Eve live show.
Actually, after the intentional anthrax?/flu/viral/bacterial
poisoning on New Year's Day
[[Page 25044]]
(I could feel the immediate effects of the bio attack during my
workout at the Sporting Club on Tuesday evening) I decided to ``set
up'' the perpetrators once again, to flush out the game for the
``kill''.
Several times at Tonight Show tapings during December 2001 I was
seated near the keyboard artist and jazz guitar bandleader, Kevin
Eubanks. I enjoy any seat in NBC studio 3, and I am especially
pleased to hear the music up close & personal. This band is first
class! I visited three Nike retail stores, two corporate owned
showcases, and ran 5 miles with the Beverly Hills NikeTown Running
Club on Thursday 01/03/02, finishing my workout at 24 Fitness
Sporting Club Irvine. I am still about eight pounds of accumulated
fat away from my previous dimensions.
This addition of weight was NOT, I repeat, NOT from overeating
... intentional family food poisoning / university hushed
experiments / subversive governmental people using my tuned athletic
body as a platform for their Nazi-like human experiments! Just when
my weight returns to about 160#, the ``ideal weight for me'' and the
weight I maintained for years in the Bay Area & San Diego, others
spike my food with poisons that block digestion & normal waste
passage, causing fat deposits. I have overheard and read several
features that explain the invasive and totally non consenting
experiments as protein / carcinoma related, as my father's and
mother's family has a history of cancers.
My intentions are not to secure a performing musical opportunity
at the Tonight Show or other venue at this time. As I have stated in
a previous memo to the DOJ, I have attended the Tonight Show and
others at NBC Burbank for professional, Los Angeles based public
relations. I wanted the Hollywood and Burbank media troops, everyday
workers like myself, as well as Hollywood's ``moguls'' and my
competitors to see me in person, not as the Family Ties ``Alex'' in
the blue sportcoat, but as a human that was subjected to some of the
most sadistic plots, who triumphed over adversity, government
subversion, and millions of dollars of negative PR.
I have been pleased to have worked successfully with over four
unique security forces in front and inside NBC Burbank, as well as
many of the private and governmental security staff at the Crystal
Cathedral, Chicago Stadium, and Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) Stadium in
San Diego. Folks, we have to have immediate closure on this long
overdue royalty issue, it's really in the billions of dollars, and
all of the other related issues from Family Ties, Stephen
Spielberg's SKG team, Universal, McDonald's Corporation, Jack-In-
The-Box, Nissan, Disney / Touchstone Pictures, IBM, Microsoft, and
others. The issue can be resolved real easily, and by authorities
through government directed wire transfers and seizures of
fraudulently acquired assets.
Transfer my CASH to me NOW! LET ME KNOW THAT I HAVE MY ASSETS
AND THEIR LOCATIONS. I will decide how to invest these assets with
the guidance of professional investment firms. I do not sponsor
anyone's investment of my assets without my consent.
THIS IS MY MONEY!
Thank you for your consideration.
Robert Remington
MTC-00008589
From: Ron Garton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:32am
Subject: May it Please the Court
Renata--
The settlement outlined is wholly inadequate. It stipulates
behavioral remedies going forward, but addresses no punitive damages
whatsoever for Microsoft's continuing illegal actions since the 1995
consent decree. Why? In addition, the terminology 'middleware' is
used in such a vague manner, as to render the agreement virtually
unenforceable. Microsoft's clear violation(s) of the Sherman Anti-
trust law are no less significant than the Teapot Dome scandal of
the 1800's in U.S. history.
Clearly, there can be no question as to Microsoft's guilt, and
the government's desire to 'close the book' on this action; based in
part on publicized statements that indicated it was 'in the best
interest of the country and the technology sector', is nothing more
than partisan politics. Frankly, to use the events of 9/11 and other
current events occurring around the world as a substantive 'reason'
to end this action makes me ill to my stomach.
I wonder, if the government compiled a list of 'industry
standards' bodies that have been formed over the last 20 years, and
analyzed Microsoft's commitment to those, what they would find? As a
contributing member to several of those organizations, I can speak
from experience, Microsoft only contributed to Standards Bodies (
that would've produced cheaper, more compatible software that would
run on any operating system, regardless of hardware ... ) when it
saw an opportunity to influence peddle it's proprietary view of
software and operating systems. IN ALMOST EVERY CASE WHERE A
STANDARDS BODY MOVED TO CREATE A TRULY MULTI-NATIONAL, MULTI-
PLATFORM INTEROPERABLE SET OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, EITHER
MICROSOFT VOWED TO CREATE THEIR OWN STANDARD OR DETERMINED WAYS IN
WHICH THEY COULD USE THEIR ``FUD'' STRATEGY (Fear, Uncertainty and
Doubt) to undermine the effort. In essence, their actions, as noted
in the Consent decree of 1995, were in direct violation of the
Sherman Anti-trust Law. How then, do we determine as a country,
through our 'duly' elected officials, that those activities haven't
harmed consumers, sufficient to warrant some form of punitive
damages? While the rest of the technology industry was attempting to
create the '110V' standard connectivity for software, Microsoft was
publicly proclaiming that it ALONE had the power to dictate what
standard the rest of the country (and the world) would use for
connecting software between computers, operating systems and all
manner of digital devices?
Did this fact escape the DOJ in their reasoning process? In my
view, the ONLY recourse is to :
1. Break the company into (2) or more distinct operating
companies, and require that all Microsoft Office tools source code
be auctioned to a top 20 international s/w company, for the express
purpose of porting it to alternate operating systems.
2. In addition, all source code for the Internet Explorer
Browser needs to go the same route.
3. All Microsoft Operating System interfaces (API's) and source
code must be placed in the public domain.
4. Future Operating System enhancements must pass muster with an
Industry Consortium, comprised of a cross-section of senior leaders
in the IT industry, not just so-called 'Microsoft enemies'
5. Marketing/Sales activities should be monitored by a 'DOJ'
oversight committee, similar in concept to the proposed
``governance'' body.
6. Microsoft should not be allowed to 'buy' or 'invest' in early
stage technology companies until a pre-determined 'moratorium'
period has expired, based on the execution date of the amended
agreement.
The basic principles of these sanctions will yield significant
benefits immediately in 'stimulating' innovation in the technology
sector, by forcing more competition and providing investors,
consumers and early stage startup companies COMPLETE confidence that
the technology that they build/buy, will ultimately be compatible
with ANY Web Browser and/or operating system. Companies can then be
FREE to compete on the basis of WHO they sell to, WHAT clearly
distinguishes their product from the competition with the confidence
that they won't suffer repercussions from MS.
Has it gone without notice that the rest of the computing world
(specifically, Europe and Asia) have similar views of Microsoft's
exclusionary practices?
If Mr. Gates wants to run his business in this country, and
remain a citizen of this country, perhaps he should consider the
protection he receives from our laws ... laws that he has knowingly
violated. If he can't manage his company by those laws, then we
should gladly hand him his pink slip, and send him, his company and
anyone who works for him, on their merry way to whatever country
would like their tax dollars. My sense of it is, this country is
much bigger than just Microsoft, and aspires to a higher level of
ethics and standards, than those practiced by Mr. Gate's staff. We
will do just fine as a country and/or an industry with or without
Microsoft and their tax dollars and jobs.
I've been following this case, and this company, for many years.
I'm a 25 year veteran of the Computer industry, and I thinks it time
that we as a country (and as a Justice Department), finally stood up
to Microsoft and deliver the judgment that has been long overdue. A
concerned, informed Technology citizen.
MTC-00008590
From: Robin Mockett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
[[Page 25045]]
I am informed that I can comment on the Microsoft settlement by
sending an e-mail to your address.
My comment is that the lesser 'punishments' now being imposed on
Microsoft are less unjust than the previously-attempted split-up of
the company. However, they are still unjust because Microsoft has
done nothing wrong and does not deserve any punishment whatsoever.
I am not a Microsoft employee or even very knowledgeable about
computers, beyond being able to send e-mail messages (for which I am
grateful to Bill Gates and inventors like him), but if I knew more I
could probably offer specific technical reasons why punishing his
company will hurt the economy and slow the rate of increase in
everyone's living standards.
Instead, I will make a simple moral claim that antitrust laws as
such are inherently unjust, as explained by Alan Greenspan in essays
in Ayn Rand's book, --Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal--. Antitrust
laws in any form constitute a tyrannical element within the
government, because (1) they impose punishment on people simply for
being productive, and (2) they impose punishment in a manner which
cannot be predicted in advance, or which depends on subjective
interpretations by judges or government prosecutors. Consequently,
the decisions of productive businessmen are controlled by the
personal opinions of government agents, rather than objectively
written statutes. This makes some of the businessmen produce less
because their decisions are blocked, others because they are afraid
of unanticipated penalties, and others because they choose to make
less effort in such a climate. More importantly, it demeans leaders
who deserve gratitude from the rest of us.
Yours sincerely,
Robin Mockett, Ph.D.
MTC-00008591
From: Dexter Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:34am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
2002-01-04
I am repeating this message in order to ensure you have it for
inclusion in the public record.
Dexter Anderson
From: Dexter Anderson
To: [email protected]
Cc: Anderson, Dexter
Sent: 2001-12-12 12:25
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2001-12-12
Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
1. The action against Microsoft should never have been launched
during the last Administration, and the sooner it is wound up,
without damage to this quintessentially American company, the
better.
2. We sometimes seem to have a death wish. As in the AT&T
dismemberment of 1983/1984, we have in Microsoft a company that is
admired throughout the world, yet some seem to derive a perverse
satisfaction from seeing whether they can smash it up.
3. It is one thing to go after a company on antitrust grounds if
it threatens to corner the market on a physical resource such as oil
or silver. But intellectual property is infinitely expandable. If
Microsoft does not keep investing better intellectual mousetraps, or
if the buying public believes it is overcharging, it will quickly
lose ground to competitors. The competitive system is self-
correcting. There is no need for government to step in. There is
need for government not to step in.
4. Microsoft's competitors should fight it in the marketplace,
not in the courtroom. It's shameful enough for the CEO of a
competing company to come whining to the Department of Justice when
he fails to obtain the results he desires in the marketplace; it is
downright disgusting to see him crossing the ocean to denounce his
countrymen from Microsoft before officials of the European
Communities.
5. The bundling charge took first place for absurdity. One may
as well tell a car manufacturer not to include tires, or a radio,
with his product.
6. The States should have no role in in the Microsoft matter or
in similar matters involving companies that are clearly national in
character.. The Constitution gives the regulation of interstate
commerce to the U.S. Congress. The threat to companies of hostile
action (sometimes, as in this case, politically motivated) by
regulatory authorities of 50 states unnecessarily raises the cost of
goods and services and harms U.S. competitiveness.
Thank you for considering my views.
Dexter Anderson
29 Sherwood Drive
Westerly, Rhode Island 02891-3701
[email protected]
MTC-00008592
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dept. of Justice,
The Clinton Administration's Justice Dept. started an attack on
Microsoft and continued it largely because Microsoft failed to pay
off the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is 1,000 x more
corrupt and dangerous than Microsoft.
Drop the persecution of Bill Gates. Look into former Clinton
Administration and current Democratic operatives.
John Carnick
MTC-00008593
From: Neil H. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is too much punishment for Microsoft. This is a
world of competition, and because of it we have the software and
hardware that we do today.
Perhaps Microsoft has used some less than perfect marketing
methods, but what is clear is that they do provide reasonably priced
excellent software. To make them split their software applications
would hurt the consumer.
I urge you to complete the agreed upon settlement and don't
deter Microsoft from continuing to produce the software we all use
every day.
MTC-00008595
From: zevy yanovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:44am
Subject: Settlement
As a tax payer I believe the attack on Microsoft was instigated
by competitors like Sun, Oracle, AOL, and IBM and not by consumers
like me. We have enjoyed the benefit of great software products and
innovations for our PCs that would have never been possible with
multiple operating system standards.
I truly believe the settlement agreed upon the DOJ and Microsoft
is a fair one and will let Microsoft to continue to innovate in a
way that benefits consumers in the US and worldwide.
MTC-00008596
From: Mark Clifton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to send you my thoughts and comments regarding the
Microsoft settlement. I think it is fair and reasonable and should
stand as is...it is time to move on and get this economy back on
track. Continuing to focus on this case has no value and just
creates more uncertainty and unrest. It1s time for politics to move
aside and let1s get this country going again.
MTC-00008597
From: Lee Sherrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:01 am
To whom this may concern:
Or to whomever may really give a shit about what the little guy
thinks.
Over the past year or so that this trial has been going on. I
have been periodically watching just what was going on. In some
cases, I would have to catch up on certain issues. After reviewing
most of the events that have been forced upon the American public
throughout the whole trial process. I have analyzed many of the
things that have been changing throughout the US and it has put me
into a state of fear. Not fear for my life or bodily harm, instead
it is a fear of the little guys financial futures. Let's face it!
The computer age is here to stay, and in order for the people of
this country are to ever move forward in their lives, in a financial
capacity, we are no, we must have computer abilities and be to move
forward in the world of computing.
Before this thing with OUR government suing Microsoft for being
unfair in some of their practices of doing business. The god damned,
selfish, greedy, son-a-bitches that were approached by and paid off
by the other competitors and some that were not competitors just the
heads of billion-dollar corporations that disliked the way that Bill
Gates made his fortune. The ones who did not work to make their
fortunes, rather inherited them. The elite ``Good-Ol'-Boys'' club.
Now I know what I am saying from this point on will be looked at as
though I am a nut! All I have to say about that is, PROVE ME WRONG!!
Most intelligent people know of, or have heard of, or personally
know of the very thing that I am speaking of. Most the elite ``Good-
Ol'-Boys'' club either know or sat
[[Page 25046]]
down and figured out a plan to demolish the DOT COMS of America.
They knew that most of them were on shaky ground with means to their
financial stability. Knowing full well that all they had to do was
shake the ground under the DOT COMS and they would crumble. Hell I
could see that. Several years ago, I had even mentioned to a friend
of mine that was in charge of operations within a DOT COM company
that his company had better stick a little more of their money into
the more stable investments out there or they were going to
collapse. I told him that ``you can't balance a bowling ball on a
stick forever, something has to go.
This is only the first part a very large puzzle. Now you take
and put that part of the large puzzle down and no one sees a
picture. So, you move on to the other parts of the picture. The part
of the picture is a large part, but not the main part. The main part
is in a simple question. WHY? Why did the US government's so called
``Justice Department'' go after a relatively medium size company (In
the eyes of the multi-billion dollar companies.) instead of the
other larger multi-billion dollar companies out there that are doing
exactly what the ``Justice Department'' is claiming that Microsoft
was in the middle of? There are quite a huge number of them out
there. Take for instance the oil companies, any one of them will do.
Price gouging the consumers, creating a FALSE oil crisis in order to
generate overly abundant profits for a product that is technically
given to them by the government. The property that is acquired by
the oil companies are sold to the companies for a very, very
ridiculously low price. (I know for a fact, because I tried, that
the government will not sell me or my friends large government-owned
tracts of land for the price that the oil companies paid!) One fine
note of interest is that most of these purchases and ``gifts'' of
properties (land) were released to the oil companies during
Republican Administrations. Stop and think whom was in office when
our ``so-called'' oil shortage happened in the `70's. Look and see
that in the 80's all of the land that changed hands and the
countries that were developed by the US tax dollars. Check out just
what companies did then and do now either control or have
controlling interest in most of the oil rich countries. Take a look
at just what is happening now with our present admin in charge.
There has been a fight for decades to keep the oil companies out of
the Alaskan Wilderness. The oil companies had a relatively small
parcel of land up there, but during the Regan and Bush (The older
Bush) admins the oil companies kept on building their huge damned
pipeline.
Now this Bush admin suddenly came up with the statement that
it's for a stronger America and said that he does not care what is
thought about it, that the agencies that have been fighting legally
to keep the oil companies out of the pristine wilderness areas are
all wrong. Then had congress quickly pass a bill allowing the oil
companies in there, knowing that it will take years to fight it in
the courts. By then it will be too late. The oil up there WILL be
produced! I guess it's no big surprise, after all he's an oil man
from an oil state as well as his dad. It makes you wonder why the
huge oil companies are not being looked at very close. Hhmmm I
wonder?
Another group of huge multi-billion dollar (in some cases multi-
trillion dollar) companies that have not been looked at are the
Pharmaceutical companies. They have clearly and absolutely done all
of the things that Microsoft is charged with and then some. Stopping
research on non-chemical oriented drugs such as plants that they
could not control the patents on or keep other companies from
developing. Buying off the FDA to keep other smaller Pharmaceutical
companies from developing drugs that would and did work but could
not get the FDA to pass the drugs for consumer use until the larger
companies could buy off the smaller companies and control the
patent. They would then take those newly patented drugs and shelf
them until exorbitant profits could be pulled out of the products.
They have developed drugs that are bad for the consumers and
promoted them as safe and developing other drugs to compensate for
the damage the other drugs had created, when the whole time they had
shelved or thrown out drugs that were more effective and safer for
the consumer but were more costly to make or the products used to
make the drugs can not be controlled by the Pharmaceutical
companies. A very good example of this is in the cancer medicines.
One in particular, the medicine used in Chemotherapy, RAT POISIN!
There is several medicines outside the US which have been developed
and has been tested and has been working on thousands of patients
for years with tremendous results. In most of the cases the results
are far, far better. These medicines will not be let into the US to
help save the American consumers from the other medicines out there
because the Pharmaceutically controlled FDA will not let them pass
the ``so called'' stringent testing the FDA requires and thus
keeping them out of the country. If that can not be seen as
restricting trade and stifling competition and controlling the
marketplace then the English language had better get a new
dictionary started, `cause we are going to have to learn a brand new
language.
I have not even been able to hit the Iceberg let alone see
what's underneath it! This trumped up, half-baked, jerk-off charges
that out fucking government representatives have thrown out to the
American public and have expelled millions of dollars of our hard
earned tax dollars, given to a bunch of has-been over-the-hill
pretend lawyers whom if you were to ask them directly if they even
had a mild clue of just what the American public really wanted or
needed, you know the answer would be ``Duh!''
They need to take a long, hard look at the other companies out
there that are doing the complaining against Microsoft. Oh my god
what do you think they would find! Most of those companies are
really into the bad stuff that they are accusing Microsoft of. But
that will never happen, as we all know. IBM is one of the accusers.
If the truth could ever be known they are just trying to get back at
Gates for making them look like a bunch of dopes. Gates is not
considered one of the ``Good Ol' Boys'', IBM is.
The government needs to stop all of the bullshit they are doing
to Microsoft. Just finish with the ``hand-slap'' and move onto the
other companies out there that are REALLY working against the
American consumer, that are REALLY grossly committing consumer trade
issues, that are REALLY and truly not doing the American consumer
and the country as a whole. If you were to put all of the charges
that are brought up against Microsoft and multiply them by fifty
that figure would only be a portion of the charges that could be
brought against the other companies that I have previously spoke of.
If the government is going to really work for the American
consumers then they need to drop the crap with Microsoft and look at
those other companies. They would be doing such an extreme service
for American that it would take decades after it was all over to
actually figure out just what was done and find out just how great
of a country the US had become. Well I think that it will turn out
to be just a pipe dream. The people in charge of this whole mess are
Republicans and when they listen they can not heard words, they only
hear the shuffling sound that money makes. The thought of actual
justice will never come about. With everyone that is in the majority
in our government has a new phrase written above the scratched out
version that was on the United States Constitution. It now read,
``By the people for the people, as long as they are rich ... etc.
etc.''
Written by
MTC-00008598
From: Wetherhold,Kent W.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This fraudulent antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft must come to
a close immediately. This is nothing more than a leftover Clinton
administration attack upon one of America's greatest entrepreneurs.
Please do what is right and put an end this atrocity.
Sincerely,
Kent Wetherhold +
MTC-00008599
From: Randy Neal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want this settled and put behind us. Microsoft is a good
company and what you have done has hurt our country's economy!
I agree that a monopoly is bad but you haven't proven where any
consumer has been hurt. I think this whole action was dictated by
companies who can't compete on their own product's merit.
Thanks,
Randy Neal
MTC-00008600
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
Dept. of Justice:
Dear Sirs:
I would like to voice my opinion on the current ongoing case
against Microsoft. It seems that the case goes on and on, driven by
companies and their lobbyists that are
[[Page 25047]]
more interested in deriving an income from the suit rather than
buckling down, working hard and becoming a true competitor. Also
some States see a ruling against Microsoft as a cash cow and help
keep the case ongoing to try and reap benefits for themselves with
no concern for the effect it has on both the U.S. economy and the
State of Washington. The people who keep this case going never seem
to bring up all the good that Microsoft, Gates and many employees do
for education and charitable needs in this country plus the tax
revenues derived for the U.S. and Washington.
WOULD YOU PLEASE BRING THIS TO AN END!!!!
THANKYOU.
Al Short
Bainbridge Is. WA
MTC-00008601
From: Ralph C. Whaley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:44am
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
The right to property is an inalienable right. Microsoft
Corporation including it's owners, the shareholders, have the
absolute right to the property created in the context of the
company. The right to property includes the absolute right to
determine the conditions of sale and use of that property. Property
rights include setting any price for any product at any time to any
prospective buyer with any conditions of use of the product the
seller sets. The prospective buyer is free to accept or reject the
terms of sale and suffers no violations of his own rights when
confronted with the seller's conditions.
The anti-trust laws impose rules of use and sale of property
under threat of government force. The government's responsibility is
the protection of rights not their violation. These laws are
violations of property rights and should be repealed.
Ralph C. Whaley MD
460 S. 5th St.
Barron, WI 54812-1509
Phone: 715-537-3614
MTC-00008602
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen,
For inclusion in the public record: Microsoft has gained its
position through free trade but, the competition has resorted to
government intervention. All that the government does it does by
force. All the government has it has taken by force. ``The simpering
rotter who whines that he sees no difference between the power of
the dollar and the power of the whip ought to learn the difference
on his hide''--Ayn Rand. Antitrust creates not a level playing field
but a crime scene. The department of Justice owes Microsoft a
conspicuous apology post haste.
Respectfully,
Thomas da Silva
MTC-00008603
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am of the opinion that the so-called ``trial'' of Microsoft is
an abomination in a country that represents itself to be founded on
the princicples of individual rights. Microsoft has done more to
advance the personal computer age than any other ten companies
combined. The premise that Microsoft achieved these great heights
through ``coercion'' is farcical. Take a look around the market
today, and you will find that the majority of products are designed
for the Microsoft platform because the company is successful, not
because they were complled to at the point of a gun--only the
imperial federal government possesses that particular methodology.
If you are truly concerned with public comment and the ``public
interest,'' then as a member of the public I emplore you to leave
well enough alone. There is no calculating the harm that you have
already done this company (and how much this has ``cost the American
consumer''). Back off now, and let Microsoft's productive genius go
unmolested unless and until it commits a bona fide crime of some
sort.
Please keep in mind that the only legitimate function for a
government is to protect its citizens from force or fraud; Microsoft
has committed neither. If you want to truly pursue a prosecution
that will be a ``victory for consumers everywhere,'' then close this
matter and let Microsoft continue to improve the lives of countless
individuals--programmers, stockholders, innovators, businessmen, and
especially consumers.
If the DoJ is truly interested in ``settling'' this case
properly, I submit that the only proper way to do that is to quit
the prosecution, to apologize profusely and publicly, and to pay
restitution for the unnecessary for waste of this company's time
over the last two years. Only then can the DoJ begin to earn the
title of ``Department of Justice.''
H.G. Lee,
Atlanta, GA
MTC-00008604
From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ: I feel very strongly that the DOJ should settle the
Microsoft case as it's currently proposes. It is fair for both
sides.
Jeff Graber
MTC-00008605
From: JESSIE AURON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that the settlement is fair to all parties concerned
and that the dragging out of this case must be considered unfair to
the majority of parties concerned. Microsoft has acted in an
honorable manner. Please act quickly to end this.
What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have not yet been
discovered.
MTC-00008606
From: Drlik, Scott
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/4/02 8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to implement the settlement reached in the Microsoft
case. Further litigation would be counterproductive. Already,
millions of dollars have been spent to reach a decision that has
been deemed acceptable by millions of individuals.
As a user of the technology being judged, I was readily able to
choose between providers. In fact, I am of the opinion that the
lawsuit lacked initial merit. Those millions of dollars spent on
this case could very well have been allocated to more needy causes;
e.g., education, homelessness, poverty.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Scott Drlik
MTC-00008607
From: Andrew Sisolak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 2:44pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT ALL OF THE LITIGATION AGAINST
MICROSOFT RE MONOPOLY/UNFAIR TRADE ISSUES BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY.
THE ENTIRE PURSUIT OF MICROSOFT WAS A MASSIVE WASTE OF TAXPAYER
MONEY, BENEFITTING ONLY ITS COMPETITORS AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS TRYING
TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES. THE MOTIVES OF ANYONE WHO WANTS TO
CONTINUE THIS ABUSE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IS BEYOND SUSPECT.
I HOPE THAT THE VOTING PUBLIC REMEMBERS THOSE INDIVIDUALS
ADVOCATING THIS LITIGATION AND KEEPS THEM FROM ANY ELECTED OFFICE.
MTC-00008608
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a long time PC user, and resident of Utah ( one of the states
whining about the settlement) I would just like to say that Novell
at one time dominated the networking/desktop environment. The main
reason they lost this position is their lack of focus and
concentration , not some alleged ``unfair'' tactics on the part of
Microsoft.
The local politicians and power structure see this trial as a
way to show their ``dedication'' in defending their constituents.
The fact that the local ``bull got gored'' does not constitute
unfair business practice. If Novell had paid attention to the market
place, and made their core product better it would still be number
one in terms of market share. Microsoft is a relentless competitor,
and one must pay attention to the game if one wishes to win.
best regards
steve mackelprang
west jordan, utah
MTC-00008609
From: Steven Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the gov't (Justice Department) should leave
Microsoft alone. The employees of Microsoft should be free to
innovate and
[[Page 25048]]
sell their innovations on the free market. It is a basic requirement
of man that he needs to be free. I don't see how the gov't should
treat the individuals that make up Microsoft any different than
anybody else. The Justice Department should try cracking down on
computer piracy. That is the gov't should be going after the
criminals those that initiate the use of physical force in it's
different forms. The bottom line is that Microsoft has a right to
earn as big of a profit as it can. Microsoft should be set free.
Steven Henderson
Van Buren, Michigan
MTC-00008610
From: Gary Olson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I personally feel the Microsoft settlement is fair. I think the
States that are not agreeing to it are looking for some easy money
and are not really interested in fair competition. I think that
other companies could and will invent software that is better than
Microsoft's and when they do there will be a market for it. People
will use the software that is best for their home or business
situation.
Thank You.
Gary Olson
S78 W26750 Hillview Drive
Mukwonago, WI 53149
MTC-00008611
From: Seven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please keep me informed. I am very concerned about the health of
the software industry should an inappropriate settlement with
Microsoft be reached.
Morley Chalmers
for the 7 Office team
[email protected]
416/926-9296
MTC-00008612
From: David E Provencher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It is my opinion that the settlement that was agreed upon should
be accepted, and this case closed. This has gone on long
enough..........
David E Provencher
MTC-00008613
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:11am
Subject: Re: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
To whom it may concern,
You may forward the letter to Microsoft that has my name on it.
I agree strongly with your letter.
Pat Brittain
MTC-00008614
From: N. Kydonieus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that this is another instance of the US government
penalizing the best in men to prop up the lesser men that cannot
compete effectively. To do this the US government has to initiate
force which is a destructive activity. The American and the global
economy has been paying for this travesty of injustice. In order to
leave the caves of barbarism and enter civilized existence, we have
to ban the initiation of force, not institutionalize it.
MTC-00008615
From: Ron Unangst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a user of Microsoft products for years and have
always been satisfied with their products. I urge you to settle this
and let the this country get on with the business at hand. Overall I
am very upset with the governments handling of the Microsoft case in
the first place. Look around, what about the merger with Warner and
AOL? Microsoft and Intel have done more to take this country forward
with the PC than anyone. Enough is enough. Settle and move onward.
The only ones complaining now are MS competitors............
Tunney Act
Roland Z. Unangst
MTC-00008616
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It appears to us that the Justice Department is coming very near
to destroying one of our greatest American companies. Microsoft
should be left entirely free to invent and innovate to the limits of
their capabilities. They should not be forced to share their
proprietary information with their competitors. Our recession
started with the opening of the ``Let's get Microsoft.''
governmental mind set and action. In athletics we do not force the
lead runner or team to slow down or score less for their
competitor's benefit!
For your information, we own Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Dell,
Oracle, Texas Instruments, AOL and Gateway stock. We urge you to
discontinue and put an end to this lawsuit in a timely fashion for
the sake not only of most American consumers, but for the economic
welfare of our country as well.
Sincerely,
Alexander M. Thomson and
Florence W. Thomson (Mrs. Alexander M. Thomson)
MTC-00008617
From: Creech, Robert
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For years now various envious business leaders have been trying
to convice government that Microsoft and Bill Gates are deamons. I
know that Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison and Steve Case are more
charismatic and come across as nice guys but, in my opinion, they
are simply vary hard nosed and egotistical business men. The reason
that Microsoft has cornered the market on operatong systems has to
do with great marketing more than it does nasty business practices.
Everyone knows that Apple had a better system so why didn't they
prevail? I'll tell you why--lousy marketing. The same exact thing
happened when the VHS standard beat out the Beta standard for VCR's.
Beta was much better but they lost out. And the other key reason
that Microsoft has done so well is because they established sorely
needed STANDARDS.
Any company that establishes needed standards will have an
advantage. Even though IBM had a very competitive operating system,
nobody was interested. Why? Partly because IBM was out of style at
that time. But also because tha last thing we need in business is
another complicated piece of software to integrate--who needs it?
How can you hammer away at Microsoft when any number of other
companies enjoy a huge market share in their product line? Please,
let's move on to things that are really important to people. I would
love to see the AG in Massachusetts spend his efforts making sure
that the executives at Polaroid do not squander my pension fund--
something that thousands of us desparately need to stay healthy.
This AG is really using his office to run for Governor--just like
the previous AG did. Microsoft has done the country and the world a
huge service and should not be raked over the coals for being better
at the software business and their rivals.
Bob Creech
Applications Systems Manager
TAC Worldwide Companies
(617) 969-3100 x294
[email protected]
MTC-00008618
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:43am
Subject: microsoft
I don't think further litigation is necessary. I didn't feel the
government should have gotten involved in this situation to begin
with. The only ones benefiting from all this litigation are the
attorneys as usual.
j roth
MTC-00008619
From: Paula Rabel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Settlement
Please just settle this case. We have never agreed with it to
begin with and would like the litigation to be settled now.
Sincerely,
Bob & Paula Rabel
MTC-00008620
From: jereeves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe Microsoft's benefits to consumers far outweigh any
costs. We urge you to please settle this case as soon as possible.
Jerry & Corinne Reeves
[[Page 25049]]
12277 Arrow Point Drive NE
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
[email protected]
MTC-00008621
From: geekfest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's unbelievable that after Microsoft has been found guilty in
two courts the Department of Justice would accept a settlement
agreement that was earlier presented and rejected. This case sets a
terrible precedent. Microsoft has been convicted and the Department
of Justice has decided to let Microsoft determine its own
punishment. I'm not aware of any other case in which the guilty
party was permitted to write its own settlement agreement.
This approach to resolution generates more problems than it
solves. Where is the incentive to obey the law? Microsoft gets to
keep its illegally acquired gains. Its competitor's position in the
market has been destroyed. It has been found guilty in two courts
and will now walk away in better business position than it was
before it broke the law. Based on this pattern will Microsoft choose
to break the law in the future? Will other corporations do the same?
The precedent established by this settlement agreement will not only
reward Microsoft for deciding to break the law, it will penalize
those companies that choose to obey it, and encourage other
companies faced with similar competitive problems to ignore the law
in the formulation of their solutions. The consumer will be harmed
in the future simply because the threat of future litigation by the
government will be meaningless. Microsoft has already been through
litigation, been found guilty, and has been allowed to keep
everything they acquired by violating the law.
Without punitive damages that make violation of the law an
ineffective approach to solving business competitive problems
corporations will use illegal methods. The laws intended to protect
the market and consumers will get pushed aside by illegally
maintained monopolies. Any settlement at the least must have
punitive monetary damages that remove any monetary gain achieved by
choosing to violate the law. In addition any settlement of a
corporation convicted of illegally maintaining its monopoly must
include either structural changes in the corporation that prohibit
future violations, or a consent agreement that has significant
predetermined fines and penalties that can be applied by government
regulators (or in this case the oversight committee). The fines and
penalties must be large enough to effectively stop illegal behavior
before the behavior can damage the marketplace and consumers and
they must be applied quickly enough to stop damage to the
marketplace and consumers. If Microsoft feels the committee
assessment is inappropriate let it go to court to get its money
back. Since Microsoft is a repeat offender (they violated their
original consent agreement and have been convicted of illegally
maintaining their monopoly) it's not unreasonable to defend against
the possibility that they may continue to exhibit illegal behavior
in the future.
Since any agreement will have different possible interpretations
the only effective agreement will be one in which the oversight
committee has enforcement powers. It will force Microsoft to either
argue their interpretation of the agreement with the committee
chosen to represent the public interest or return to court for a
formal determination. The proposed consent agreement does nothing to
discourage illegal behavior by Microsoft and sets a precedent that
will harm consumers and the market in the future. I urge the court
to reject this proposed settlement as inadequate protection for
consumers and force a more punitive settlement or conclusion to this
case that will send a clear message that laws that prevent the
illegal maintenance of a monopoly will be strictly enforced. If the
court fails to send this message then the laws may as well be
repealed for all the good they will do.
Thank you for reviewing this comment.
Sincerely,
John K. Stevens
P.O. Box 634
Bath, OH
(330) 701-6458
MTC-00008622
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to express my views on the subject settlement.
Go with the Court of Appeals ruling. This case should not be
dragged out any longer.
Arthur W. Jacob
7860 Palmer Rd.
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068
MTC-00008624
From: Leslie Ishimi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:03am
Subject: Thanks for asking.
Haven't been following the settlement closely. But Thanks for
asking. Haven't been following the settlement closely. But generally
I think Bill, Microsoft, and the American public got screwed by
somebody who doesn't get the big picture. What you've done has
changed the world, daily, for the better, for the last how-many
years. Somebody ought to be sucking your toe cheese and saying thank
you minute-by-minute. Sorry for the setbacks. They are inevitable
when you do something well. And with even a small understanding of
reality I have come to accept that even if you're able to clear one
don't-get-it person out of the way, there's always another right
behind. So tread undaunted as best you can--you are STILL performing
an incredibly valuable service to the planet as you chart an
extremely difficult journey for all of us. The way we earn a living
will continue to change which affects the global economy which,
unfortunately, still runs the world. I'm sure as the world shakes
out the wrinkles we will all face more circumstances we don't know
what to do with at first, but we made it before and we'll just keep
working our way through the development of our minds and instincts.
Oh, and remember the words on Henry Miller's tombstone: I outlasted
the bastards! lol
MTC-00008625
From: Frank and Miriam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I feel it is in the public interest, considering the aftermath
of September 11th, to reach a speedy conclusion to the Microsoft
case. Prolonged litigation would only benefit the lawyers, a few
wealthy competitors and special interest groups, and serve to stifle
innovation.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Brown
MTC-00008626
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my strong view that the current settlement be accepted so
that the industry can go forward without being ensnared further in
litigation.
Hoshang Presswalla, P.E., S.E.
President
P.E., Inc.
MTC-00008627
From: batson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust `Comment'
Greetings:
What is the closing date to file a COMMENT?
Regarde,
Marguarite
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008628
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
Please settle this matter soon so the economy can move forward.
Michael Ho
[email protected]
MTC-00008629
From: Frank and Miriam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I feel that settlement of the Microsoft case is in the public
interest. Prolonging this litigation, particularly in the midst of
uncertain economic times, would benefit only lawyers and a few
wealthy competitors, and serve to stifle innovation. This case has
dragged out long enough.
Yours truly,
Miriam E. Brown
MTC-00008630
From: Cindy(038)Keith Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
[[Page 25050]]
I am writing to express my support of the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I think the case never should have been brought in the
first place, and in has gone on for too long. Microsoft has made
many concessions in this proposed settlement that I believe are very
fair and address the concerns brought during the court battle.
Please don't let Microsoft's competitors continue to use the
U.S. government in their battle to destroy Microsoft.
Thanks for your attention.
Cynthia A. Hansen
P.O. Box 146
Snohomish, WA 98291
CC:keithcindy
MTC-00008632
From: Mike Ward
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I represent a computer technology training company, and it is
our business to remain on the leading edge of information technology
(IT) to provide necessary IT education to America's corporations.
Part of my job is to stay abreast of the rapid changes that take
place in the IT industry every day, so that we can be assured we're
offering instruction in the latest and most widely-used software
packages.
By any measure, Microsoft is a leader in the software industry.
But from my experience with Microsoft as a company, they earn that
leadership position every day as fierce competitors and extremely
good innovators that constantly seek out the needs and feedback of
their customers. Their research and development budget is nearly $8
billion per year, and I believe, second to none. That investment
alone shows their commitment to technical innovations that benefit
us all.
As I mentioned, I come across industry information on a daily
basis that confirms that competition is alive and well for Microsoft
products. Two obvious examples are the proliferation of open-source
Linux and Sun's consideration to freely distribute their StarOffice
suite. And yet, consumers continue to pay for Microsoft's products
because they are superior at meeting the needs of the market
majority.
Please put an end to the litigation, and let the software
industry seek its own level of healthy competition.
Mike Ward
VP, Technology Services
ONLINE CONSULTING, INC.--
LEADING EDUCATION TO IT SKILLS
wILMINGTON & PHILADELPHIA
Phone: (302) 658-3018, ext.134
Web : http://www.onlc.com/> http://www.onlc.com
Email : mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
MTC-00008633
From: James Ashberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement does nothing except expand Microsft's
monopoly into the education market where Apple and others still have
significant claim. By allowing Microsoft to infiltrate these markets
through donations, whilst seeming on the surface to be a good will
gesture, is nothing but a mass infestation of Windows based machines
into the eduation sector.
In addition, the figure Microsoft have claimed it will spend
will be greatly smaller, as software's retail value is far higher
than the actual financial impact it will have on Microsoft.
Microsoft should be made to donate the cash to the education
agencies within the United States, and the cash should be used at
the discretion of the schools and areas involved. This way schools
will benefit, have freedom of choice, and Microsoft is made to pay.
Allowing Microsoft's proposed settlement to go through is not only
folly, but will make a mockery of the US and the US justice system.
James Ashberry
Internet Developer
United Kingdom
[email protected]
MTC-00008634
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Dept. of Justice
We would like to express our viewpoint on the Microsoft case. We
believe that the settlement reached with the Federal Government and
the nine states was a reasonable settlement and that it is not in
the best interest of the Unites States economy to prolong the
litigation. The settlement reached is in the best interest of all
concerned and should be imposed on the remaining states that did not
accept the settlement. In short--lets put an end to the endless and
counterproductive litigation and allow the free enterprise market to
function.
Sincerely,
Joe Feege
154 S. Center St.
Hickory, NC 28602
MTC-00008635
From: JACK ROWE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that the suit against Microsoft was harmful to the US
economy in far greater proportion to any benefit to the public (as
opposed to Microsofts competitors) that was realized. That's not
even considering the taxpayer funds spent. It's time to end it and
get on to other things. Get the settlement completed now, and see
that all parties, and potential parties are included.
Dr. Jack D. Rowe
MTC-00008636
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The difficulties associated with young or nascent but exploding
businesses, particularly in the field of communications where there
continues an ever changing, expanding marketplace of interrelated
products and services such that no ``snapshot'' of a ``market'' can
sustain the test of short duration, cannot be over-estimated. And
attempting to put a noose of control around a growth that will not
be contained, even in a constructive way, may be more of a restraint
of trade than a protection of the consumer, even competition. We
need to enable the establishment of a stable market, before we seek
so drastically to control its abuse, something only the marketplace
can do, assisted by the normal policing for fraud and the like. For,
if we don't, we will only short-circuit the progress in progress as
evidenced by the growing pains brought on by new discovery and
development. Desk-top operating platforms have been outgrown by the
introduction and proliferation of wireless and digital technologies
which now enable a portion of the desktop to be carried with an
individual, no matter what his or her interest is, thereby making
the market for desk-tops something hardly exclusive, which says a
great deal about operating systems, the only apparent monopoly
Microsoft had, and certainly, by developments since, no longer has.
Look at what happened to Compact in view of the Dell approach. Given
the path of technology, if its progress is not squeezed by
regulatory cut off, the Microsoft advantage will be lost if it does
not continue to address innovation and improvement of which its
competitors are quick to take advantage. Any solution harming
Microsoft's ability to provide better products and services to the
communicative consumer, even at the expense of the competition, is
no foul so long as the market remains as diverse as it is with the
players as plentiful as they are at numerous levels which prevents
the monopoly of only a segment, if indeed even that can be defined
right now.
Be careful that you don't short-circuit our prosperity in your
endeavor to protect a ``competition'' which may have already
succumbed to technological innovation. If the settlement can be read
to agree with the foregoing, we think it a good agreement.
A victim of the abuse of competition
MTC-00008638
From: Dwayne Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
My perception is that the settlement between the United States
Department of Justice and nine states is in the public interest. The
settlement seems reasonable and fair to all parties. More litigation
to satisfy some of Microsoft's wealthy competitors is not in the
public interest.
Sincerely,
Dwayne Jennings
5105 Briarwood Cove
Milan, TN 38358
MTC-00008639
From: GRADY Tim
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
After reading on the proposed legal settlement with Microsoft, I
believe the proposed settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals
of a proper remedy: halting
[[Page 25051]]
the illegal conduct, promoting competition in this industry, and
depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
Microsoft was proven to have broken the law, which makes them
criminals. They should be treated as such. My career is in
information technology and I have witnessed first hand what damage a
company like Microsoft, allowed to perform business as it had, can
do to stifle innovation and creativity that benefit us all.
I would like to suggest creating remedies that will be clear,
lasting and permanent. Microsoft should not be given wormholes to
get past any actions taken against them and I don't believe that
Microsoft giving away billions of dollars in software to
underprivileged schools is a good idea as that reinforces some of
it's tactics that are practiced today.
Respectfully,
Timothy M. Grady
MTC-00008640
From: Rons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
If Ma Bell was still the only phone company, would we have phone
innovations like caller ID or cellular and pay only 5 cents a
minute? If Microsoft was just another software company, think what
innovations in software we might be using today.
Microsoft does not innovate they dictate. Microsoft is a
tyrannical monopoly that runs roughshod over the computer industry.
Microsoft has shown contempt towards potential competitors and
disregard for the rulings of the US Department of Justice.
Microsoft needs a timeout until they learn to play well with
others.
Ron Schultz ? President
Space Port User Group
408 Sundown Ave.
Alamogordo, NM 88310
MTC-00008641
From: Harvey J Chiat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please make every effort to settle the Microsoft case per the
comprehensive agreement reached between Microsoft and federal
government. It is in the best interest of the internet users that
the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling should
stand and the case should be closed. I am in complete disagreement
with the stand taken by the Minnesota Attorney General and the
Attorneys General of the eight other states that oppose the
settlement reached.
Harvey Chiat
3812 Drew Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55410
[email protected]
MTC-00008642
From: ROBERT FELSBERG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:02am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Let's settle with micosoft and stop wasting time.
MTC-00008643
From: Wayne Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:05am
Subject: I feel like microsoft has more than paid the price . I wish
the USA would settle it !
I feel like microsoft has more than paid the price . I wish the
USA would settle it !
MTC-00008644
From: Jay Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:07am
Subject: Lawsuit
I am a Professional Engineer and I use the full slate of
Microsoft products at work and at home. I enjoy using their products
and I used Internet Explorer. I like the ability to use products
that work well together. I have been using PC's since 1984 and know
how ``lock ups'' cause problems by conflicts. I have never had
problems with Microsoft products, just other applications that
typically caused the conflicts.
I do not believe in the US government suing Microsoft. The
problems with our stock market began with the announcement of the
first suit. I would prefer that the states and the government drop
the lawsuits.
The average person in the lawsuit gets nothing back, the
attorneys get all the money. Please drop the action against
Microsoft.
Jay Davis
210 E. Weber Circle
Lake Charles, LA 70611
[email protected]
MTC-00008645
From: Jereza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to register my comments in favor of the proposed
settlement. I have read through terms of the settlement and feel it
is fair resolution of the dispute, and provides sufficient ongoing
monitoring of Microsoft practices in the future. I realize that
there are competitive interests to whom no settlement would ever be
satisfactory, as long Microsoft continues to be in business at all,
and we must take this into account when listening to these
opposition voices. I ask that the settlement be accepted, because it
is in the best public interest to do so.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Julie Kirk
MTC-00008646
From: David Hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government's case against Microsoft, well-intentioned as it
may have been, has been hurting the American economy for far too
long. The issues the case intended to address are already moot.
(Laws intended to prevent excesses a century or more ago are not
working in the current economic environment.)
While Microsoft may have gone too far in trying to protect its
interests, the market itself is self-correcting. It is also too
self-interested to allow Mr. Gates and company to impose his will on
millions of users who may or may not choose to use Microsoft's
products.
The only way Microsoft can stay ahead in this highly competitive
environment is by developing excellent products. At this point the
government is impeding Microsoft in this effort by draining so much
of Microsoft's resources to fighting the legal battle. In this case,
if the government would just allow the market to function, everybody
would benefit.
Sincerely,
David Hicks
MTC-00008647
From: Glenda Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Madams:
I feel as little as possible damage should be done to Microsoft.
I work at a software company and we program for Windows. Our
developers are able to product top quality software because they are
working in this one venue rather than for multiple operating
systems. We need fewer tools for development and are able to offer
great affordability because of our ability to focus on Windows.
Microsoft has been portrayed as the ``bad guy'' when they simply
were more effective than their competitors in a free market system.
I can't begin to estimate the money that has been saved by the
American consumer as a result of Microsoft's success.
Please do not punish this remarkable company and it's
shareholders any more than has already been done.
Their competitors hope only to accomplish using the courts what
they could not in the free market.
Thank you for your consideration.
Glenda K. Hill
Greeley, CO
MTC-00008648
From: Deanna Wells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to pass along my comments on the proposed settlement with
Microsoft Inc. I have worked with one computer system or another for
the past 20+ years and have found Microsoft to be user friendly and
first class in product quality. To continue legal action beyond the
current settlement proposal is an abuse of the judicial system by
parties wishing to inflict major damage to a capital enterprise.
History has shown the damage inflicted to IBM seriously curtailed
their ability to bring new and innovative products to the
marketplace during the years of litigation by the government. IBM
too was a first class and quality product prior to and after the
long term litigation by DOJ. I realize the circumstances are
different, and today is not the same business environment as the 60s
and 70s. But once a decision is rendered and settlement fair and
equitable, resolution in a speedy and decisive manner is best for
everyone involved.
Let's finish the job and go one with other business. Beating a
dead horse wastes tax payers money and abuses our judicial
[[Page 25052]]
system. MS was caught wrongdoing. Come to a settlement that can be
found agreeable for all parties and let life continue on.
MTC-00008649
From: R J Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would hope that this is the end to this antitrust suit for all
parties concerned.I feel that a lot of time and a lot of the
taxpayers money has been spent unwisely supporting this antitrust
suit to begin with.I also feel that the Clinton Administration
brought this suit only to repay favors to other corporations since
their products didn't measure up to what we the public want,so this
was their way of trying slow Microsoft Corporation so they could
regain some market share.
I also feel the Clinton Administration has hurt not only
Microsoft Corporation but the public at large for the tax revenues
lost just to bring this suit,and anyone that has a 401k account has
been affected.
In closing I would like to comment on the nine states in this
suit.I don't see that they should be even considered in this
antisuit.
Sincerely yours
Robert Burns
MTC-00008650
From: Eldon Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:33am
Subject: court settlement
Microsoft has kept its products at a reasonable price from the
very beginning. Their products have been very useful to the home
user. As usual the court system drags things out endlessly. Leave
them alone to do their thing.
Eldon Erickson
650 SW Lookout Drive
Corvallis, OR 97333
MTC-00008651
From: Duncan D McGregor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems to me that this case has been settled in court.
Microsoft has been penalized and that should be enough. This company
has made the use of computers available to almost anyone for a very
reasonable software cost. I strongly recommend that this case be
settled on the basis of the courts findings.
Duncan D. McGregor
313 Curtis Road
Chesterfield, SC 29709
MTC-00008652
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:43am
Subject: Continued law suits
Lets continue with the free enterprise system in our USA. Finish
up with this agreed on settlement with Microsoft.
Ralph Darnell,
1013 Sudan Dr.,
Corpus Cristi, TX.
MTC-00008653
From: charles stengel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:43am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Isn't it about time you settle with microsoft on the basis
established by the courts. lawyers keep coming up with new ways to
make a buck for themselves.
C.A. Stengel.
MTC-00008654
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:51am
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
Microsoft should be left alone. Microsoft has not forced anyone
to do anything. Microsoft offers a product. One may buy it or not
buy it. If not, other computers (Apple, for example) and operating
systems (OSX and Linux, among others) are available. Even if one
buys Microsoft, one can install browsers other than IE, such as
Opera, iCab, and Mozilla.
There is no problem from Microsoft. The problem is envy. Those
who would deny Microsoft its success, should examine their own
premises.
The principle is: Are force, threats of force, or fraud being
used by Microsoft? These are the only means available to violate our
rights against our wills. I see no evidence of tort or crime.
Get over it.
MTC-00008655
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ Officials:
Please settle the lawsuit as negotiated with Microsoft. We, the
people, are tired of all the litigation that goes on in this
country. The DOJ and the Attorneys General in the various states
should set an example --- and not a ``litigious'' example. Enough
all ready, you made a point and now lets get on with what makes this
country great = free enterprise! We need to move more quickly into
the tech age and continuous litigation against or within the tech
industry is counter productive to a strong, vibrant economy.
Yours truly, John E. Vallance
PO Box 1100
Santa Monica, CA 90406-1100
MTC-00008656
From: Jim Crumley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:54am
Subject: M.S. SUIT
The DOJ suit against Microsoft triggered a multi-trillion dollar
meltdown of our economy. Doing far more damage than bin Laden. DROP
THIS SUIT NOW AND HELP RESTORE AMERICA
Jim Crumley
610-558-5811
MTC-00008657
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I understand that the federal government and nine states finally
reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the
reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. I believe
that the settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties involved.
Ben Claassen
SCGI
504 486-2317
MTC-00008658
From: RLifsey357
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:59am
Subject: Lawsuit
Dear DOJ:
This lawsuit was ludicrous from the start, essentially a money
grab by Microsoft want-to-be companies, and trial attorneys. I have
experienced and can never foresee any hardship caused by Microsoft
by being a pioneer in the technology field. Hence, the adage, ``No
good deed in this country goes unpunished''.
I furthermore consider the settlement under consideration more
than generous from the accused parties.
Thank you for consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Lifsey
Metairie, LA
MTC-00008659
From: Les Troy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:03pm
Subject: settlement
The ``settlement'' is unfair to Microsoft, but I am a practical
man and I don't think Microsoft is likely to get a fair deal. Any
further litigation can only hurt the consumer, the economy, our free
enterprise system and thousands of microsoft shareholders. The only
ones who can gain are the billionaire executives of companies who
don't want to compete in the marketplace on the basis of merit and
service to the consumer.
MTC-00008660
From: james.good
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:09pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
I was asked to voice my opinion of this fool hardy law suit of
Microsoft. I think my first sentence tells you. Companies should be
allowed to compete in the market place, and not be tied by zealous
lawyers and government officials who have no business interfering.
The main cause of this suit to my understanding was the bundling of
Microsoft Internet Explorer. Well, I have 2 systems with Windows 95
and 98, and both have Explorer on them. I loaded Netscape on both
because I like it's operations better. So, where did Microsoft force
me to purchase and use their product over Netscape? To me, both were
free and in one system part of my package when purchased.
I think that the settlement should be finished, Microsoft should
be left to provide the products and services they are known for and
the lawyers and government should remain out of the business loop
unless true illegal business practices are used.
Regards,
Jim Good
Colchester, CT
Microsoft Share Holder
[[Page 25053]]
MTC-00008661
From: Mona Chicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ and
several states is fair, not only to the parties involved but to the
consumers who should be given the ability to choose the best
software to fit their individual needs.
Mona Chicks
[email protected]
14015 NE 87th Street, Redmond, WA 98052
(425) 702-9695
MTC-00008662
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get this over with. The Clinton and Gore Era started
this. I am a Consumer and on the Internet ONLY BECAUSE OF MICROSOFT.
No one has done more for the technology and our country plus the
consumers than Microsoft. Our Stock Market needs MSFT stability.
Please get off our only good Stock that make the world turn. Tell
Microsoft you are sorry and pay his Lawyer Bills. The Courts should
beg forgiveness and the States Attorney Generals that went against
our only Gross National Product. I hope every State that continues
to try and get money from Microsoft gets paid back. Remember the
golden Rule.
MTC-00008663
From: Jon M. Griffith, Assistant Principal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I am writing in regards to the Microsoft Settlement. It has come
to my attention that you are considering where to focus the funds
from the settlement. I would like to briefly explain where I would
hope you would direct some of the settlement.
Currently, I am the Assistant Principal/Transportation Director/
Athletic Director but before this recent job change I was District
Computer Coordinator. With that job, I can honestly say the funding
for technology was scarce. The School District of Spooner is a
medium size school district in rural Northwest Wisconsin. The
majority of the supporting community is either retired or around the
poverty level. Unlike larger communities such as Madison or
Milwaukee, Spooner and the surrounding smaller towns are not able to
tap into our local industries for help. Most of the businesses are
geared towards tourism (such as bars, restaurants and small grocery
stores).
In fact the 3rd largest employer in Spooner is our local grocery
store. With this background, I would hope that any aid that you
could funnel towards rural areas would greatly be appreciated. To
compete with schools from larger communities we need to have similar
resources. Grants and scholarships are basically our only option.
Asking our voters for help is very depressing (we failed our last 5
referendums these past 10 years). The funding would help us upgrade,
build infrastructure and maintain the technology that we do have.
I can give you many examples, but my point is to ask for you to
support technology funding for rural areas such as Spooner,
Wisconsin. Any support would greatly be appreciated.
Thank You!
Jon Griffith
MTC-00008664
From: Dean and Urs Ratti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:31pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
As long-time consumers of Microsoft products, our desire is to
see the Microsoft lawsuit settled NOW. It appears that those
entities which are delaying the settlement are doing so for
political reasons only, to the detriment of the consuming public and
in turn, the overall economy. As harsh as the Court of Appeals
ruling is, let it stand, and let us be done with the continual
litigation.
Dean and Ursula Ratti
MTC-00008665
From: Jim Cornwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
BEING A BUSINESS OWNER I WAS APPALLED WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, SPURRED ON BY THE COMPANY'S COMPETITORS, ATTACKED ONE OF
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES THAT HAS GROWN IN OUR COUNTRY IN
RECENT YEARS. IT WAS A RELIEF WHEN THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE CHANGED
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THIS WITCH HUNT WAS BROUGHT TO AN ABRUPT
CONCLUSION. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ``SETTLEMENT'' TERMS ARE, THE
IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS STEPPED ASIDE IN
ORDER TO LET AMERICA'S CAPITALIST FREE MARKET WORK. DO NOT LET THESE
SPECIAL INTERESTS DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SETTLEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR RESOLVING THIS MESS AS SOON AS CLINTON WAS
DEPOSED.
YOURS,
JAMES CORNWELL
MTC-00008666
From: John Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties
involved. I agree that settlement is good for the industry and the
American economy.
Thank-You
John Phillips
MTC-00008667
From: donescher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Further prolonging the Microsoft litigation is a drag on the
U.S. economy and on American industry in general. We believe the
proposed settlement is fair to the parties and just as importantly,
the American comsumer. A continuation would appear to be counter
productive in these dangerous economic times.
Shirley & Don Escher
MTC-00008668
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough already. The non agreeing states case must be dismissed
so that we can go on with the rebuilding of the economy of New York
and the Country. The issue is greed and how the government can try
to ruin the greatest sucess story in the history of mankind. By
delaying the settlement of the contribution of massive computer help
to the schools that need help the most, we delay the help to another
year of students.
I hope that we can count on the Federal Government to do the
right thing and end this mess.
Walter Steckman
2 Tudor City Place 10HS
New York, New York 10017
[email protected]
MTC-00008669
From: is
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am happy with this settlement.
Thanks,
Igor Spivak
MTC-00008670
From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:50 pm
Subject: Excellent Comments
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
I'm forwarding this article (and it's link) as I feel it
portrays the Microsoft settlement for what it really is (nothing
more than a cleverly disguised scam)
Yes, the article is long, but should still be read
http://www.macobserver.com/news/2002/20020103/kheit--
msantitrust.shtml
Microsoft: Of Kids & Con Men by John Kheit
Of Kids and Con Men
Microsoft seems to be trying to use kids and education to lull
everyone into believing them. The hope seems to be that maybe no one
will question that Microsoft's proposed settlement allows it to
extend its monopoly product leverage into the educational market. It
also seems that Microsoft would like everyone to believe that
promising to be good monopolists under an honor system is a
reasonable solution to anticompetitive practices. Perhaps next
they'll suggest convicted drug dealers should be allowed to pay
their debts to society by giving free crack to our kids, assuming of
course they promise to not run other dealers out of the market. Give
me a break.
[[Page 25054]]
Microsoft Settlement Jibber Jabber
The laudable goal of helping our kids with a proposed settlement
that Microsoft wants to direct at schools may well be a cue that
we're being suckered. Recently, Steve Jobs, the ever effervescent
technology leader and CEO of both Apple and Pixar, chimed in with a
chorus of other commentators to pooh-pooh on Microsoft's scandalous
proposal to settle for its crime of being a naughty monopoly.
Microsoft's proposal to settle a class-action, civil, antitrust
lawsuit with various states and private parties could have it paying
$1.6 billion to schools, mostly by way of Microsoft software, as a
settlement for its past misdeeds. Mr. Jobs claimed to be ``baffled''
by the proposal.
Some legislators have this nasty habit of packaging together
nonsensical laws for rhetorical and/or other less-than-righteous
reasons. It's interesting to note that our government doesn't see
any hypocrisy in its normal operations employing tying and other
trust-like activities for leveraging power to force the acceptance
of questionable laws while not allowing industry to do the same with
products. I expect that one day soon a bright legislator will draft
a bill that declares his home address to be tax free zone, provides
himself with billions in disaster relief, declares himself emperor
of the world, and adds a law saying ``you should be nice to kids.''
This bright legislator will do this for the same reason others have
done it, to mask his true intentions. The hope in this sort of
scheme seems to be that everyone will be too ashamed to vote down a
bill that says ``you should be nice to kids'' for fear of rhetorical
backlash. The fear of being criticized for voting against a bill
that says ``you should be nice to kids'' can make people and
legislators alike do stupid things like adopt laws that are
otherwise illegitimate.
So why am I harping on the flimflam tactics of con men,
terrorists and politicians alike (please, I know I'm being
redundant) in an article about Microsoft? Because a scam may be
afoot. The reason for Mr. Jobs' and others' apparent consternation
is if Microsoft gives its software to schools, it will incur no real
penalty. Commentators state that approximately $840 million of the
settlement will come by way of Microsoft software, which would
actually cost Microsoft approximately a paltry $1 million. That's
because making copies of its own software is essentially free for
Microsoft. Furthermore, Apple and others fear that dumping that much
Microsoft software into schools will shore up Microsoft's market
position in the educational sector, where up until this point
Microsoft has not managed to clearly dominate. Many commentators and
Mr. Jobs have suggested Microsoft give the schools the entire
settlement in cash. Of course, there is some degree of jibber jabber
over the amount of cash that Microsoft should give to the
educational sector, however, it seems that no one dares question the
choice of market itself. That's crazy.
Only Microsoft Is Paying Attention to Relevant Markets
The fact that Microsoft chose the educational market, alone,
should be a red flag to any practicing antitrust attorney. Most
antitrust attorneys know that market definition at trial is largely
determinative of the outcome. ``Because market power is often
inferred from market share, market definition generally determines
the result of the case.'' Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical
Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 469 n.15 (1992) (citing Robert
Pitofsky, New Definitions of Relevant Market and the Assault on
Antitrust, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1805, 1806-13 (1990)). For example, if
Microsoft's marketplace were considered to be all software made
anywhere for any processor, it would only hold a small percentage of
that market. That's because most of the world's software is not made
by Microsoft. For example, there is a lot of software in
calculators, microwaves, cars, airplanes, missiles, telephones,
mainframes, televisions, etc. Thus, if a court decided that the
relevant market was all software, then it would have been very
likely that Microsoft would not have been found to be a monopoly. On
the other hand, if the relevant market was said to be Intel
compatible personal computers, then Microsoft easily would be deemed
a monopoly. You've probably heard this before, but it is important
to note that it is not illegal, per se, to be a monopoly. However,
once you are found to be a monopoly, it is illegal to abuse your
monopoly power in anticompetitive ways. 15 U.S.C.A. Sect. 2; U. S.
v. Grinnell Corp., 86 S.Ct. 1698 (1966); Intergraph Corp. v. Intel
Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Regardless, depending
on how the market is defined, one can pretty much predict if an
accused company will be found to be a monopoly.
Microsoft's Solution Ignores the Victims
With this background, it is interesting that Microsoft would
focus on a market where it is not currently dominant rather than
giving the damages to parties that have been more directly injured
by its anticompetitive practices. Its main victims, supposedly, were
other software companies stunted or driven out of business (anyone
remember Stacker?) and consumers that have been overcharged.
Consumers Overcharged
Some analysts posit that Microsoft overcharged individual
consumers by as much as $150 on products over the years. Many
consumers were fleeced and forced to pay Microsoft a license fee for
Windows when buying a computer even when they didn't want to run
Windows or even when they already had a valid license for Windows.
Microsoft evinced its recompense to the consumer by raising prices
on Windows XP significantly.
Obvious Solutions Ignored
Certainly, there seem to be easy remedies that actually address
and would affect Microsoft's monopoly power while providing
compensation to both groups of victims. With regard to consumers,
potential solutions may include: offering money to those that can
show they were forced to buy unwanted Windows licenses, giving money
back to OEMs (so they can lower prices on their non-Microsoft
products), or giving cash to consumer groups to monitor any heavy
handed tactics in the future. With regard to the software industry,
individual companies that can show damages should be compensated,
e.g., Netscape, or at the very least settlement money should go to
the Small Business Administration (or non-government analogues) for
them to help software start-ups, which would promote more
competition.
The most obvious places to send any settlement money would be to
these victims. Otherwise the injured parties will have no redress
for the damages wrought by Microsoft. Microsoft's current proposal
is a little bit like offering to give money to a for-profit
orphanage run by Microsoft as a punishment for having robbed a bank.
Sure, some orphans may benefit (and probably will be trained to be
future bank tellers), but Microsoft still keeps most of the money
and the bank gets nothing. Of course, paying damages to the software
industry would likely result in greater competition by infusing
capital into a sector that certainly can use it. Furthermore, paying
money to an independent watchdog consumer group would tend to
prevent Microsoft from freely using its monopoly power in
anticompetitive ways. I'm sure Microsoft had very conscious reasons
for choosing the particular market of education and ignoring the two
groups most directly affected by its anticompetitive actions, and I
leave it to the reader to decide for themselves what those reasons
were.
Counterproposals Make for Bad Law and Will Further Reduce
Competition That's why it's so fascinating to me that with market
determination being so central and critical in the world of
antitrust that no one is questioning the choice of market for the
settlement. I don't know of any parents that wouldn't at least
question a proposed punishment for their children's wrong doings, if
they were even liberal enough to allow their children to propose
their own punishments in the first place. Regardless, the main
counterproposals from commentators seem merely to concentrate on
Microsoft settling with a full cash payment instead of supplementing
the settlement with Microsoft software. The states' proposal
basically would force Microsoft to license its source code and keep
producing Microsoft Office for the Apple Macintosh and maybe Linux.
Such suggestions seem to take one step forward and two steps back.
The step in the right direction is that Microsoft pay damages in
cash. Last time I checked, this was still the United States of
America and the official currency was a green-back and not a license
for Windows. The step backward is that the state governments are
considering requesting that Microsoft actually widen its Monopoly by
having Microsoft enter new markets, either itself or through
licensing, that it currently does not dominate, e.g., Linux. The
states basically want Microsoft to open up its source code in return
for licensing fees. Great! Now the states are basically making
Microsoft's code essential. We've seen that even with supposedly
open standards such as Java, HTML, etc. that individual companies
are capable of steering and using those systems to proprietary
effect.
One unpropitious scenario that may result from such a forced
licensing system is that
[[Page 25055]]
Microsoft technology would now become even more dominant. A
significant collection of software developers on the Linux platform
could be adversely affected by Microsoft bull dozing in with its
Office suite; this would allow Microsoft to use Office as leverage
to subvert the platform as it has often been accused of doing with
the Macintosh platform. Where do you think most people (or at least
most corporations) will buy their version of Office, Microsoft or
some secondary licensee? And even if you buy from a secondary
licensee, Microsoft still makes money on licensing fees as per the
states' proposal because Microsoft would be entitled to receive a
reasonable royalty for its intellectual property. It's as if the
states are trying to help Microsoft spread its wares even further
with this solution.
I cannot recall any settlement in antitrust history where a
solution to a monopoly was to further expand existing and/or
potential markets with the monopolist's products. The law seems to
require quite the contrary. 15 U.S.C.A. Sect. 2. Yet at every turn,
counterproposals seem to actually expand the adoption and/or reach
of Microsoft's products. Microsoft suggests donating software, which
would further saturate the educational market. The states suggest
entry into alternative markets from which Microsoft will benefit by
way of increased licensing revenues. Even merely giving cash to
schools for purchasing software (as suggested by some commentators)
will tend only to strengthen Microsoft because it will continue to
benefit from its monopoly position. Buying Market Share Witness its
Xbox game console. Microsoft's Xbox retails for $299, but it is
rumored to lose about $125 on every unit it sells. So, perhaps, it
is not surprising that Microsoft is willing to spend money on
capturing more of the education market.
Microsoft Gets Everything It Gives
For example, even if Microsoft gives cash to the schools, Apple,
likely, still will get screwed. Assuming Microsoft gives the schools
$1 billion for computers and software, Microsoft will still win
market share and its actual costs will remain low. Why? The schools
will hand most of Microsoft's money right back to it to buy
software, and the government will also end up kicking some money
back to Microsoft. Even if half the schools buy Macintosh computers
(which is roughly Apple's market share in the educational market),
the schools will still buy Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office costs
a lot more than a license for plain old Windows. And let's face it,
if Microsoft ever kills Office on the Macintosh, it will have
terrible consequences for the platform; and if someone were to
speculate what a nasty monopolist would do when given a chance, then
one might speculate that such a nasty monopolist would kill Mac
office, which would force the remaining 4% of the computing world
over to Windows. The point being, one way or the other, a large
portion of any cash settlement will come back to Microsoft by way of
software purchases, and Microsoft will still be able to leverage its
products unfairly across markets. Furthermore, Microsoft will be
able to write off the $1 billion settlement as a loss and recoup
from around one third from the government. I.R.C. Sect. 162(g); Tax
Reg. Sect. 1.162-22. In the end, a cash settlement still will cost
Microsoft relatively little while at the same time it still will
increase its market dominance, and the reason why remains the same.
They are a monopoly.
Just Because You Used To, Doesn't Mean You Still Can
A little example may be in order. If you are Acme Inc. with 1%
of the PC market and wish to bundle your screen saver with your PCs,
no problem. The government might even hold you up as a ``go getter''
in the sense that you are trying to compete to win market share.
However, if Acme starts to win more and more market share and later
owns 99% of the market, then giving its screen saver away for free
might be considered to be dumping, tying, predatory pricing, and/or
the like illegal activity because it is now a monopoly. So there are
some things, i.e., the very kinds of things, that are encouraged in
a competitive and open market that become illegal once you attain
the status of a monopoly. Wolfson v. Artisans Say. Bank, 428 F.Supp.
1315, 1321 (D.Del. 1977).
Nothing the government is currently proposing is designed to
change that fundamental reality. Apparently the only arguments that
proponents of the proposed settlement provide is that at least a
cash settlement would cause Microsoft to lose some money. However,
that seems to miss a great irony of why Microsoft is supposedly
being punished in the first place. As any M.B.A. will tell you,
Microsoft, as with any other corporation, wants to own every market
to maximize returns for its investors. Owning the education market
would help Microsoft shore up its current dominance by getting young
people ``hooked'' on its products. By getting kids hooked early,
they are less likely to try other systems because the cost of
learning a new system is not insubstantial. Furthermore, Microsoft
certainly shows it is willing to invest money to gain market share.
Thus, such a settlement, arguably, can be viewed as just a cost
of doing business to garner market share. The irony is that a
monopolist is not allowed to give products away or sell them at a
loss.
Xbox Errata
With the government practically abetting a convicted monopolist
in anticompetitive practices on its core products, there seems
little likelihood that there will be an investigation into
Microsoft's Xbox pricing and other tactics used to enter and buy out
the gaming market; tactics that arguably may violate other antitrust
laws. Of course that didn't stop me from buying one as it is the
most incredible gaming platform I've ever seen (particularly with
Halo, the formally independent producers of which have been bought
out by Microsoft), but I digress.
Such predatory pricing and/or dumping tactics are normally
illegal for a convicted monopolist. U.S.v. Columbia Steel Co., 334
U.S. 495, 530 (1948); Western Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v.
Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 760 F.2d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985).
Thus, it is currently illegal for Microsoft to give its software to
the educational market for free or at a price below its costs
because they have been found to be a monopoly. However, if the
government agrees to Microsoft's proposed settlement with the
states, then the government will at the very least be providing
Microsoft with an exception to this rule, or at worst be a
collaborator in illegal predatory pricing and dumping. It is not
even clear if DoJ may allow the states to settle with Microsoft when
the settlement terms, arguably, further require breaking the
antitrust laws. Setting up an end-game as beautiful as this
certainly deserves adulation in the annals of business history. The
lawyers at Microsoft must be dancing jigs of joy all day long at the
thought that the government may actually require the company to
increase its software penetration in various markets and in some
cases be allowed to use tactics that otherwise would be illegal.
Microsoft's proposed settlement, which is ostensibly a
punishment for anticompetitive monopolistic practices, is refreshing
in its outright obnoxiousness. They deserve kudos for selling their
proposal without anyone questioning the fundamentals. Microsoft has
managed to frame the settlement so that people are not questioning
how, where, and/or why it should be punished, but boiled things down
to only a question of how much it should pay.
Kids Are Irrelevant
I suppose people are afraid to question giving money and
resources to the schools ``for the kids.'' And don't get me wrong,
I'm all for improving education in the United States. In this case,
however, the kids simply don't deserve this money. That is because
the greatest harm befell the public at large and countless
innovative software companies (their creditors, employees,
investors, etc.), which were driven out of business, stunted from
pursuing markets for fear of oblivion, and/or never materialized
because Microsoft's presence and practices were too ominous an
obstacle. Those are the people that were primarily smashed and/or
pushed around by Microsoft as mentioned throughout its antitrust
trial. If any one industry was wronged and deserves recompense, it
is the software industry as a whole (excluding Microsoft of course).
Yet no one is even considering directing damages to the software
industry when it was the clear victim. This is shameful; the kids
are not more deserving here. And if you think I'm being a big meany,
please refrain from being a big ole hypocrite and don't bitch if
(heaven forbid) your home is burned down, and then the arsonist
decides it would be better to give money for rebuilding your home
``to the kids.'' Regardless of where the money should ultimately go,
it's amazing the choice of where it should go has not been the
subject of much, if any, debate or dispute.
Government Bargain
The government, save for a few states, certainly doesn't seem to
have questioned anything all that much. The DoJ's perspective seems
to be ``we've told Bill he's been naughty, and he promised he'd be
good.'' Microsoft has promised to be a good monopoly, however,
Microsoft's outright cheap (offering to expend a few million in
actual costs while claiming it's worth $1.6 billion while knowing
the states are likely to
[[Page 25056]]
collect over $14+ billion if the case goes through trial is at the
very least thrifty) and duplicitous proposed settlement, its
structure, and the chosen market should be evidence itself as to how
solemnly it regards its obligation to be a good monopoly. Generally,
it is questionable if it is even possible to be a good monopoly.
Supposedly a good monopoly is one that doesn't engage in
``anticompetitive'' practices (IP right holders and their government
sanctioned monopolies withstanding, which is a topic for another
day). Wolfson, 428 F.Supp. 1321; Intel, 195 F.3d 1346. That seems to
imply that Microsoft should then engage in competitive practices.
Yet, that's what Microsoft has been doing all along, i.e., competing
like crazy, and why it's in trouble now. Or perhaps the government
would like Microsoft not to be competitive so that the rest of the
industry will be able to compete with an artificially handicapped
monopoly? Neither solution seems to result in a truly competitive
market. The only solution proposed, so far, that would result in a
situation where Microsoft and the rest of the industry could all
truly compete is where Microsoft's hold over the industry is broken.
Break-up Complimentary
Microsoft's brilliant business practices have made it a dominant
force. Bill Gates and company truly deserve a great deal of praise
for demonstrating incredible business and political acumen. I'm not
trying to be sarcastic and my praise is genuine when I say that Bill
Gates is the best businessman ever to walk the earth. Truly the
highest compliment the government and President Bush could pay Mr.
Gates would be to regard him as one of the greatest American success
stories of all time. Mr. Gates should be in an elite cadre of moguls
who won at playing the American dream. Just like J.D. Rockefeller's
Standard Oil, Bill Gate's Microsoft needs to be broken up. Yet the
DoJ, after winning the antitrust case against Microsoft, has gone
from promoting a break-up as a remedy to shunning it for a
settlement with the apparently coincidental arrival of the Bush
administration. Why settle a case on poor terms now? To be sure,
there are reasons to settle after winning a case, but these usually
revolve around the strength and cost of an appeal. The government
claims it has a solid case on appeal, and the cost of an appeal is
irrelevant (relative to the ramifications of a poor settlement) to
both Microsoft and the DoJ. So, once again, why settle a case on
such unfavorable terms after winning on the merits!?
You don't have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to surmise
that the Bush administration's inexplicably chummy perception of
Microsoft has influenced the DoJ's about-face and acceptance of a
Microsoft settlement. Certainly, the DoJ seems to have some
interesting interpretations of what a just punishment is for a
convicted monopoly that has driven away and/or killed off some of
the world's most creative competitors by means other than merit.
Leveraging Honor Unwise with Monopolists
The break-up solution at least addresses the unfair leverage
Microsoft uses across markets by exploiting its Internet browser
(Internet Explorer), operating system (Windows) and application
suite (Office) line of products. The proposed settlement of giving
money to schools will do nothing to reduce the inter-market leverage
that Microsoft enjoys. In fact, giving the schools money for
software and training will likely only increase the dependency those
schools have on Microsoft's products. Furthermore, the DoJ
settlement relies on Microsoft being ``good'' and somehow tempering
its extremely competitive nature. Perhaps the DoJ should spread this
new punishment policy to convicted serial murderers and set them
free assuring us that they promised to be good in the future. No
real argument seems to have been given as to why anyone can expect
Microsoft to suddenly become and remain a good monopoly when it has
thus far been incapable. However, history provides an argument to
the contrary. Moguls are competitive. Successful companies are
competitive. The very nature and manner of competing that was at one
time legal, encouraged and the cause of their successes (e.g.,
lowering prices, building market share, driving lesser competitors
out of business) have (in many instances) become illegal practices
once they were found to be monopolies. Standard Oil Co. of New
Jersey v. U.S., 221 U.S. 1 (1911); Wolfson, 428 F.Supp. 1321; Intel,
195 F.3d 1346. As such, moguls and their successful companies are
more likely to continue their practices simply from inertia.
Certainly, Microsoft's latest acts seem indicative of
anticompetitive recidivism: dropping Java from Windows XP will not
help SUN; selling Xboxes at a loss seems to leverage its financial
power derived from one market to move into another; disabling non-
Microsoft web browsers from accessing MSN demonstrates that even if
Microsoft makes its proprietary source code variations to HTML open,
it still likely will induce users to stick with Microsoft branded
browsers rather than being hassled and jostled from services during
the lag time it will take for licensees to implement any new
proprietary ``features'' to obtain parity with the official
Microsoft version; and using heavy handed licensing tactics in its
Software Assurance Program (SAP--make up your own jokes) has
garnered wide criticism for forcing a licensing strategy to make
users upgrade more frequently than desired.
If history serves as any lesson, a competitive mogul like Bill
Gates will not become less competitive until he's declared an
official winner and has no choice but to stop competing. There seems
to be only one way to be declared a winner in the U.S. and that's
through break-up as enjoyed by J.D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil.
Standard Oil, 221 U.S. 1. There is no reason to believe that Bill
Gates and Microsoft will stop employing anticompetitive tactics
until they are forced to stop competing with the full force of
monopoly power. Anything less than a forced break-up will leave Bill
Gates and Microsoft with the status of being mere contenders not
important, successful, or dangerous enough to warrant a government
break-up. It's doubtful Bill Gates could be satisfied with such a
runners-up title. Thus, the government should provide Mr. Gates and
Microsoft with the closure they deserve and declare them winners
officially. In a certain sense, I believe Mr. Gates would be able to
enjoy his victory having fought the good fight. If not, he can try
to become the first person in the U.S. to have two of his companies
broken up by the government.
I will not rehash why Microsoft's proposal for (please place
tongue in cheek) ``justice'' (please release tongue now--thank you)
is akin to sentencing a serial murderer to work as an executioner at
a prison and trying to pass it off as a ``community service.'' As
long as Microsoft is allowed to exist as a monopoly, it will be
nearly impossible to punish it in any meaningful way so as to
provide disincentive from abusing its power.
MTC-00008671
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Department of Justice is not acting in the best interest of
this country to pursue an antitrust accusation against the Microsoft
Corporation. Microsoft is not a monopoly. They are an independent
competitive corporation that has provided innovative and beneficial
products and services to the businesses and consumers of American
and the world.
Why does the DOJ think profit means corruption? Microsoft is
simply our American system of business working in its finest form.
For the DOJ to listed to a handful of Microsoft competitors and
their claim that they have been restricted from operation in a free
marketplace is just irresponsible. We have a free marketplace and it
is the responsibility of the DOJ to keep it that way, by allowing
Microsoft, and other corporations like it to continue operating and
exploring and creating new and exciting products and services,
without interference or restriction from the Department of Justice.
Keep America Free! Keep our way of life and our way of American
commerce unencumbered by useless and destructive litigation. Don't
let the whining complaints of the few hurt the productivity and
opportunity of the many.
Jay Mathews
10418 Sedgebrook Dr.
Riverview, FL 33569
MTC-00008672
From: DONALD WRAY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I AM NOT AN ARDENT MICROSOFT FAN * * * BUT LET'S GET THIS THING
SETTLED. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS REASONABLE.
WHY SHOULD THE STATES ATTEMPT TO HOLD THIS UP. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THE COMPETITORS OF MICROSOFT THAT WERE SO OPPOSED TO MICROSOFT HAVE
DONE VERY WELL FOR THEMSELVES...SUCH AS AOL. THE ECONOMY, ESPECIALLY
THE TECH STOCKS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A BEATING. LETS MOVE AHEAD
INSTEAD OF STILL TRYING TO KILL THE GOOSE
[[Page 25057]]
THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG. IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING, MICROSOFT OF THE
PAST YEARS, HAS DONE MORE FOR THE TECH ECEONOMY THAN ANY OTHER
COMPANY. SETTLE NOW.
Donald W. Wray
450 Treasure Island Cswy. Apt #207
Treasure Island, Florida 33706
[email protected]
MTC-00008673
From: Barbara J Cline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
3621 Oakwood Drive
Bettendorf, IA 52722
January 4, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to offer my views on the antitrust lawsuit that has
been going on between Microsoft and the federal government. I have
been reading about this case in the Wall Street Journal, and it is
one that I have never understood or agreed with. I support your
decision to settle.
The case has had no positive effects, and the negative effects
have been many. Schools are being hurt, the stock market has been
affected, and the economy has dwindled as a result of the technology
industry being hindered during the past three years while this case
has gone on. In addition, the whole idea of the case is wrong in
that it is stepping on the development of ideas, and this is a poor
message for the government to be sending. Our economy is really
struggling at the moment, and the government should be trying to
find ways to stimulate it rather than ways to keep it down. Settling
with Microsoft was a step in the right direction.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Charles Cline
cc: Sen. Charles Grassley
MTC-00008674
From: DUANE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand that a decision will be made in the near future
regarding penalties that will be assessed against Microsoft. During
my working career I spent 30 years in engineering and management at
Boeing.
We used IBM and Microsoft software to run our computers for all
kinds of design, analysis and marketing acivities. I am convinced
that Microsoft provided the best software for many of our
applications but we did use software from other companies for
specific applications.
I urge you not to break up the company or force them to release
code to other companies. If they are required to release source code
it would be no different than Boeing being required to release the
software they use to design their airplanes and spacecraft.
Microsoft has invested a large share of their profits to develop new
software and expand the capabilities of existing software programs.
They do not pay dividends to their stockholders, they put it back
into research and development. It would not be fair to give
companies software code that they could have developed themselves
were they inclined to invest their profits in research and
development. Microsoft did not become the largest software company
by taking advantage of other companies, they became the largest
because they had a great management team with a strong vision of
what people wanted to do with personal computers.
I sincerely hope that your decision will take into consideration
the millions of personal computer users who have benefitted from the
investments Microsoft has made in their software programs. Software
for our computers will become much more expensive and less robust if
Microsoft is required to release source code for Windows and other
software programs.
Anyone can make a difference,
Everyone should try !!
Duane Edmonds
[email protected]
307-754-9396
MTC-00008675
From: Winslade, Winston
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 12:54pm
Subject: MS Settlement
I would like to express that this case should be settled today
so that MS can move forward in providing low cost innovative
solutions to the public. An engineer by schooling and involved in an
industry that produced computer systems for mission critical control
in the process industry, I know the pain suffered by users that were
stuck (necessarily so because of no standards) with proprietary
operating systems. It was not until MS introduce a more robust OS
that could be used for industry that this industry started to move
towards standards. This at a cost in the multi-millions of dollars
to industrial users.
The point is, without MS consumers would have experienced this
same costly dilemma. That fact we have plug and play and an
unlimited selection of application software that can be installed by
even the novice user, is attributed to MS's leadership in the
industry.
Quite frankly, the consumer has never been hurt by any of MS
practices. In fact, the consumers has low cost software and OS'
because of MS. This case should never have been heard in the first
place.
The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer.
MTC-00008676
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Why does the Government always try to brake down a company for
getting big and making a profit. Isn't that the American Wau. LEAVE
Microsoft alone.
MTC-00008677
From: elizabeth jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 12:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Leave Microsoft alone! Hurray for Bill Gates.
E. Jones, MD
MTC-00008678
From: Cris Von Wald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My view is that I fully support the proposed DOJ settlement. It
is time to move on and does no one any good to continue to draw this
process out.
cvonwald
MTC-00008679
From: andy greenwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please finalize the agreement with Microsoft as it stands and
let's get on with business. It's a competitive world, let's let it
stay that way. Microsoft is one of the world's great innovators. Let
their competitors ``compete'' with new and better products if they
don't like the way things are.
Andy Greenwood
MTC-00008680
From: Dr. Manton Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Legal Settlement
The settlement between the US Justice Department and nine states
seems fair and just. Given the downturn in the economy, there is a
pressing need to settle the litigation. Customers and taxpayers
should and will benefit. Global competition should keep all players
on their best in providing low cost and quality service and
products. This settlement does not mean the end of monitoring.
Global competitors, customers and government can bring complaints at
any time and place.
Manton C. Gibbs, Ph.D.
Associate Director of the American Society for Competitiveness.
MTC-00008681
From: Andy or Gail Hatle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is damn well time to get off the back of Microsoft. If we,
the consumers aren't happy with it, we can stop using it. We are not
slaves to Bill Gates. How much have we wasted on useless persecution
of a software producer, and how much had we spent going after bin
Laden before Sept. 11, 2001? Let's get our priorities straight and
consider the good of the country instead of following the path of
Bill Clinton trying to repay his campaign contributors. We need real
leadership instead of playing stupid political games.
Sincerely,
Andy Hatle
[email protected]
MTC-00008682
From: Dave Tomesch
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25058]]
Date: 1/4/02 1:07pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
Dear To Whom it May Concern;
I have been using Microsoft Software for several years with
great enthusiasm. I like their software and the support I get from
buying their products. I do not feel they have a Monopoly in any way
compared to Bell or Hydro or Oil Or Gas or the Lumber Industry. I am
certain that there are many Hackers, Malicious programmers that are
Jealous of Microsofts Success and therefore only a monitary discount
on products or services is required to settle any further waste of
TAXPAYERS money on this CASE! PS I have used Atari products in the
Past with 1000's spent on them with little or no help from the
company! They definetly had a monopoly on their products in the 70's
and 80's along with Apple and you did not see any lawsuits then!!!.
If you really wanna know what most consumers think, they think Unix
and Internet programming companies are jealous of Microsofts
successes and several Democrates took advantage of Taxpayers dollars
to push a Insufficient evidence case against microsoft compared to
reality. Reality is Oracle has or had a monopoly on Internet Servers
(WHERE's THEIR MONOPOLY CASE???, You can use their own commercials
on TV against them(we have 100% of the Marketplace on servers was
their slogan!) The list could go on and on so I hope the Justice
Department ends this case soon, give Microsoft a slap on the wrist
along with Oracle, Sun Microsystems etc and get on with Consumer
Products from all the US and Canadian Companies. Setup a department
for Monopolies in any field of US. Commerce) Because in Reality
Microsoft could move to Canada and what CASE would you have then?
US. Laws do not work in Canada or we wouldn't have BELL CANADA or
PetroCan ETC, and their are many more real big monopolies around the
WORLD! (GOLD Companies ETC So putting the computer Industry in
perspective!!!!!! if the key, I owned an atari 400, 800, xl800,
1200, Atari ST, Atari STE, Apple, IBM Computers etc. etc. You can
see Microsoft came out on top but maybe the future some other
company might do better so let the industry continue and Maybe those
new Tablet PCs made by other companes might be the next big thing
who knows!!!.
Sorry for the long PS but the Justice department should really
be looking into why Oracle shares went from 25 dollars to 130 while
Clinton was in office and back down again! There is a real monopoly
of servers there and get with reality. I dont own a microsoft
Monitor(its a clone) I don't own a Microsoft printer its from HP, I
dont own a Miscrosft scanner its from IBM, I don't own a Microsoft
Hard drive its from Western Digitial, all my software is 80% owned
by other companies, Disney, 3D0, etc, 15% is microsoft Kids games or
Operating systems, SO IN REALITY there is NO MONOPOLY HERE!!!!
SO WHERE IS THE MONOPOLY CASE IN MY HOUSE????? NO WHERE!! ITS
NON EXISTENT!!!
Dave Tomesch
(You can quote me if you like!)
MTC-00008683
From: Dave Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:07pm
Subject: DOJ:
DOJ:
Please stop the witch hunt of Microsoft being orchestrated by
its competitors and their agent polititions. The whole issue
revolves around the preposterous definition of the ``relevant
market''.
David L. Rice
MTC-00008684
From: RC Fullerton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
This lawsuit with Microsoft as defendent has gone on too long
and now that there is a chance for a settlement, the action for
settlement should be taken by the Court. RC Fullerton Canyon Lake,
Texas
MTC-00008685
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Civil Servants,
The agreed upon Microsoft Settlement is just and the government
needs to move on. This lawsuit has done nothing to help consumers
from day one (Microsoft's products have always been fairly priced)
and was initiated to protect competitors that could not compete with
Microsoft. Agreed, Microsoft is a tough competitor but the reasons
that it has succeeded are not do to monopolistic activities but to a
new business vision on how to survive in a fast moving technology
world. They pour more profits back into research and have the lowest
paid management team in the industry. They operate the company like
a graduate school where the rewards are stock options versus
degrees. Their workers are highly motivated.
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Hynes
MTC-00008686
From: Frank Danaher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear sir
Please be advised that I think the settlement agreement with
Microsoft is fair and the litigation should be ended as soon as
possible.
We have seen how the asbestos, tobacco, cigarette, breast
implant and pharaceutical litigations have caused the demise of many
fine companies. For the sake of the country we do not need excessive
and oppressive litigation that will serve to protract the recession
and bring about the demise of many fine companies.
Would like to suggest that you take proactive measures to
discourage lawsuits at all levels. Finalizing the MicroSoft
Settlement would be a fine start.
Thank you
Frank Danaher
MTC-00008687
From: john j boyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not delay the settlement further. It is not in the
best interest of the nation or consumers to drag this on any longer.
Sincerely,
Marsha E. Boyle
Florida
MTC-00008688
From: Scott Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As a satisfied customer of Microsoft for over a decade, and as a
dis-interested third party, I'd like to comment that the entire DOJ
action against Microsoft disgusts me. Microsoft has, in the past,
done much more public good than evil, at least from my viewpoint.
Before Microsoft, interactivity between software applications was
practically non-existent, and competitive products couldn't use each
other's data. With Microsoft's so-called monopoly, my productivity
has increased dramatically because I can now integrate one
application's data into another application very easily. As far as
I'm concerned, Microsoft should be allowed to continue operating as
they have been until they actually cause harm to me or the American
public. The only entities they've hurt are their competitors, and
that's the way capitalism is supposed to work * * *
Regards,
Scott Brooks
1519 Chardonnay Dr.
Harker Heights, TX 76548
MTC-00008689
From: Jim Baskin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have not seen consumers hurt by Microsoft's action, and I have
not seen it proven in court. It has been disappointing to have our
government fight against what I think is a great company, seemingly
expressing the views of Microsoft competitors in court (not consumer
views). As a citizen and taxpayer I ask that you end this litigation
as soon as possible. The current Microsoft offer is a HUGE benefit
to the nation.
Thanks,
Jim Baskin
Senior Consultant--MCS Microsoft Telecom Practice
Phone (425) 705-3749 Pager 800-895-6003
``You can stomp the grapes twice as fast, but that doesn't
create a 20 year Tawny Port in 10 years.''
MTC-00008690
From: Saddiq, Tareq
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing this letter to lend my support to the settlement
reached between Microsoft
[[Page 25059]]
and the Department of Justice. This lawsuit is just a way for
competitors of Microsoft to feel good about their lack of success
and block any further achievements of Microsoft. Even though I
believe this suit should not have been brought about, it is better
to resolve this issue and move ahead, rather than spending another
three years in court.
Microsoft has earned its success along the way. It has provided
its consumers with quality care and service, which has tremendously
helped in its worldwide accomplishments. Microsoft opponents have
suggested terms that appear to stifle trade, such as uniform
licensing price agreements. Even so, Microsoft has acknowledged the
terms so that it can move on. This waste of American tax dollars is
pointless. To stop this from continuing any further, all action that
is taking place at the federal level be brought to an end.
Sincerely,
Tareq Saddiq,
Senior Network Architect, Phone: (608) 278-7888 or (608) 225-
8741
CC: `Tammy.Baldwin(a)mail.house.gov'
MTC-00008691
From: Steve Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:34 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Miller (sw [email protected])
From the outset I disagreed with the Government's prosecution of
Microsoft. The success of any operating system platform is
determined by those of use who write software for it. For years
nearly eight million developers have written software for the
Windows platform. Since so many developers have chosen to write for
Windows the consumer had more applications from which to choose.
Allowing the consumer to pick what they felt was fight for them.
Microsoft Windows has been far more open and allowed consumers
more choice than other operating systems. Other operating system
vendors give you what they think you should have rather than
listening to the consumer and providing the features important to
the consumer. Since, the settlement is in place I think it should
stand. While I continue to think that it is unnecessary it is better
than the attempts to break up Microsoft. I think the break up
attempt was a contributing factor to the soft economic conditions we
are now in since our economy is technology driven. Any further
attempts to limit Microsoft will only hurt the economy more and
punish those eight million developers who have chosen to make their
living using Microsoft technologies.
Thank you,
Steve Miller
425 Kemper Drive North
Madison, TN 37115
(615) 612-1919
sw [email protected]
Steve Miller (sw [email protected])
MTC-00008692
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 4, 2002
I believe that the Department of Justice should settle the
Microsoft case. The agreement reached by the federal government and
nine states with Microsoft addresses the reduced liability found in
the Court of Appeals ruling.
Further litigation is unnecessary, and harmful for the American
spirit.
Sincerely,
Valerie Hines
[email protected]
MTC-00008693
From: Mehran Behdjat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
DOJ
I believe that the most recent settlement between DOJ and
Microsoft is fair and equitable and no more letigation is necessary.
Continuation of letigation against Microsoft is detremental to the
fragile U.S. economy and will hurt the technology and innovation as
a whole.
Sincerely,
Mehran Behdjat
MTC-00008694
From: david faibish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--CASH ONLY!
The penalty paid by microsoft should NOT be an in-kind
contribution (of software, hardware, or services).
Recipients should be free to choose who and what they buy with
the proceeds of any settlement.
Especially in the education marketplace which is one of the few
where microsoft faces real competition (ie Apple); a ``forced'' gift
that is platform-specific _undermines_ not enhances the very
competition which is the goal of the penalty in the first place!
regards:dlf
MTC-00008695
From: Chris Cleary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
People are envious of the success of large companies and
individuals such as Microsoft and Bill Gates, respectively. This
should not cloud the vision of the Department of Justice. Do not
break up Microsoft.
Leave the company alone, solve real crime, and go about you
business.
Breaking up any company that has been made large and prosperous
from people voting with their wallets is socialism. There are no
barriers that Microsoft competitors have to surmount that have not
been surmounted before. They need more creativity as they lack
ideas. Microsoft's competition has not been outlawed as with the
U.S. Postal Service and First Class mail; it is merely uncreative.
Leave Microsoft alone and go after the real criminals.
Chris Cleary
Fairfield, Ohio
MTC-00008696
From: DENNIS BROWN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Microsoft continues to abuse its' customers, the general public,
and the laws of commerce in our great nation. Their arrogance is
most apparent in the way in which they have launched the latest
version of their operating system and its' integrated software.
Microsoft has flaunted the very settlement and suggestions of the
DOJ and the prior trial judge. The new version of the operating
system is even more anti-competitive! Please reconsider, on behalf
of the American people, your settlement offer.
Dennis Brown
[email protected]
Kaneland High School
Maple Park, IL
MTC-00008697
From: James T. Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please approve the settlement and let all parties move on with
business.
J.murphy
MTC-00008698
From: Kirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice, With the settlement of the Microsoft case
nearing the point where the District Court will rule whether or not
this settlement is in the best interest of the consumer public, I
wish to urge that it is.
The proposed settlement with the DOJ and 9 states is tough, fair
and appropriate. As a consumer, I have never felt that I was harmed
in any way by Microsoft's business tactics. I believe that
standardization is actually the consumer's best friend, assuming
that the quality of the standard is upheld. I believe that Microsoft
works very hard and invests millions, or even billions of dollars to
ensure that their products are the best.
As an investor, I have lost significant amounts of personal
wealth in the past 18+ months, partly due to the economic downturn,
but also in large part because of the case against Microsoft, which
drove the price of Microsoft stock, and the stock of nearly every
other company down. I have always maintained that the pressure on
Microsoft stock, which is so widely held in private accounts as well
as institutional funds, has had a large role in eroding our economy
during the past couple of years.
As a taxpayer, I feel that more than enough has been spent on
this case. In the interest of the taxpaying public, I think it is
time this case were settled and put to rest for good. I wish the
other 9 states attorney generals who have not agreed to this
settlement would also put aside political aspirations and act on
behalf of the public as well, and join in this settlement agreement.
Private interest groups who oppose this settlement do not have the
majority of public interest at heart- for them it is a personal
vendetta.
Suffice it to say that as a consumer, and investor, a taxpayer
and as an American, I feel this settlement is appropriate and
necessary so that we all might get on with our lives and with the
business of
[[Page 25060]]
strengthening the American economy. In order to do this, one key
step is to put this case to rest. Please include my sentiments as
part of the public record for the District Court to review.
God Bless America.
Sincerely,
Kirk Werner
Duvall, Washington
MTC-00008699
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
One thing more: a lot of this complaint by Microsoft competitors
to the Government is beause they cannot compete in price and
performance. Therefore we believe Microsoft has been punished for
being efficient. The country does not need this sort of action by
the Government. It stifles business innovation and loses jobs. Mr.
and Mrs. Anthony J. Maiale 941-597-5864. 672 92nd Avenue, North,
Naples FL 34108
MTC-00008700
From: Pete Detskey (ELN)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to oppose the anti-trust settlement that has been
proposed with Microsoft. I write as both a small business owner and
as a consumer of Microsoft software products.
Capitalism works only when competition exists. Justice must be
served in regards to the anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft. The
proposed settlement does not guarantee competition for new
companies; it does not promote benefits to consumers.
One flaw with the proposed settlement is that it leaves open too
many loopholes on what code is not required to be made open to other
business seeking to develop new products. It also seems to have a
sunset provision on when the oversight committee will disband in
several years. We need a permanent solution to the Microsoft
monopoly problem.
The nine states that did not sign on to the agreement have a
better plan on promoting competition. For example, they require that
Microsoft Office products be ported to rival operating systems.
For consumers, consider the recent warning that the FBI issued
regarding the security holes in the Win XP operating system. I think
it is awful that the FBI has to issue consumer warnings--at taxpayer
expense--because of Microsoft negligence. In a competitive
environment, no company would release a software product with
serious flaws; that action would risk going out of business. But in
a monopoly, Microsoft has no fears and will bully everyone around as
it sees fit.
Justice must be served on the anti-competitive behavior of
Microsoft. The current settlement offer does not safeguard
competition in the marketplace. It provides no benefits to consumers
with flawed software products.
Justice is NOT served in the proposed settlement. I urge that an
alternative settlement be proposed.
Sincerely,
Peter Z. Detskey
Tucson, Arizona
(520) 297-7289
MTC-00008701
From: Magnus Hammar Borsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Well, maybe this is totaly unimportant for you. But I wanted to
make myself heard. Since I am not an american citizen, I do not have
any constitutional rights to express myself in this matter.
But this is as important to me as it is for any american.
Microsoft is not an ``american'' corporation, it is an international
corporation and most people working for Microsoft are NOT americans
(some are as me, swede's. Not to mention all programers from India *
* *).
Maybe you as americans, for once, should ask other nations what
they think about Microsoft? And just maybe you should try to addept
to others, instead of trying to change those who think different
from you? Sooner or later your pride might be your fall, and that
would truly be a sad end for a beutifull nation as yours.
Magnus Hammar
MTC-00008702
From: David G. Odom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge in the above settlement case:
I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version,
Windows XP. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for a number of
years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic marketing
tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related products
have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments by
Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe the
opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually
discourages competition and stunts technological growth. To believe
that Microsoft is anything BUT a monopoly in the micro-computer
market, is nonsense. Looking at anyone's PCs or any companies micro-
servers will tell you otherwise and the truth.
Consequently, I do not believe the Federal Government's proposed
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is inadequate and
that stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such
tactics from being used in the future. I believe the proposed
settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy:
halting Microsoft's illegal conduct, promoting competition in the
industry, and depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
I would be happy to discuss those controls if you need input
from the ``regular public'' that has to suffer through the Microsoft
monopoly environment.
Sincerely,
David G. Odom
Tucson, AZ
MTC-00008703
From: JHWallis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Continue the trend away from the anti-business/anti-capitalist
tenor left behind by the previous administration. The settlement is
sufficient.
MTC-00008704
From: Nathan Vick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I would like to add my voice in favour of breaking Microsoft
into an Operating System business and an Applications business. I
think that is the only effective way to get Microsoft make windows
more extensible for third parties, more standards-compliant (without
embrace-and-extend) and more thoroughly documented. I think breaking
them up is the only effective way to accomplish these goals because
it is the only way that produces and fast-acting economic incentive.
Nathan
[email protected]
Nathan Vick
Programmer/Analyst
Capilano College
MTC-00008705
From: PCCorral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For many of us who are in the PC industry we have know all along
that this lawsuit was motivated, funded and perpetuated by Sun
Microsystems, Oracle, the Sansoni legal eagles and other Microsoft
competitors. Though there was some merit to the complaints about
Microsoft's OEM pricing policies, those practices have been
discontinued and remedied.
The one who is really being hurt by the continuation of this
case is the consumer. Microsoft's competitors don't want Microsoft
to be able to add free new features to its software. But it's the
consumer who would be hurt by this. It is time for this case to be
settled. Do ever consumer out there a favor and settle it!
MTC-00008706
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
Drop the suit. It is a waste of money
REGoodwill Jr
MTC-00008707
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Department of justices I am writing to you concerning the
Microsoft settlement. I think the settlement is fair to all, and any
future litigation will only hurt the consumer. I am disabled and on
a limited income, (in some ways we all are, on limited income that
is)
[[Page 25061]]
and Microsoft has help me buy some products I might not otherwise be
able to afford. I do own some Microsoft stock, which if the company
was left alone the little bit I have invested will help my income
someday. thank you for this opportunity to share with you.
Ed etzwiler
MTC-00008708
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the current proposed DOJ settlement. Let's not
get tangled in further litigation. Thanks
MTC-00008709
From: Brooks, Steve
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft Settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties
involved.
Steven J. Brooks
Senior Systems Analyst, D.B.A.
ADP COBRA Services, Inc
wk. (770)-619-7200 ext. 1342
cell. (770)-367-1759
MTC-00008710
From: jack timmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer professional for over 20 years, I'm shocked that
the US government is still trying to sue Microsoft. Microsoft has
contributed more to this country than all the other computer
companies combined. Instead of a well deserved award, you are
punishing them, obviously on behalf of their competitors in Utah
(Novell), California (Sun/Oracle) and New York (IBM/AOL).
Stop trying to kill the goose that continues to lay golden eggs!
Shame on you for supporting their competitors in such a
painfully biased and unfair way!!! It's incredibly obvious what a
hack job this is.
Jack Timmons
Seattle, Washington
MTC-00008711
From: Mister Thorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Could you please advise as to the deadline for the public to
submit comments on the Proposed Final Judgement? Is it Sunday, 6 Jan
2002 which is 60 days after the 6 Nov 2001 posting of the Judgement?
Is it Tuesday, 15 Jan 2002 which is 60 days after the 15 Nov 2001
posting of the Competitive Impact Statment?
Thank you.
Mister Thorne
MTC-00008713
From: Robert Westerberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's stop wasting taxpayers' money and making life difficult
for one of the great companies of the technological age whose
continued existence is of paramount importance for the economy of
the United States and the progress of global freedom. Bill and Paul
took a chance way back when, in the true spirit of American
entrepreurship, when computers were the toys of academia. Now
Microsoft is being punished because they have been successful beyond
anyone's dreams or imagination.
Yes, I have a vested interest in Microsoft. It is the heart of
our retirement plan. Stop jerking Mr. Gates around just because some
whiners didn't take risks when the Internet Age was in its infancy.
That is the real reason there is only one truly capable operating
system for computers in the world today.
Affirmative action is of the past--be it for people or
corporations. Countless millions have been spent for lawyers in this
matter so far. This should not become another AT & T attorney
welfare scam.
Hands off Microsoft!
Robert Westerberg, faithful shareholder since 1998.
MTC
-00008714
From: Dillon Dale Civ OC-ALC/LGPA
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 2:30pm
Subject: Comment on settlement
Dear sir or madam
Please be advised that I do not agree with the current
settlement as proposed by the Dept of Justice.
In summary, what I see is this, Microsoft owns the only
trainstation, that is the OS. It knows where it layed the tracks and
how the tracks operate, (internal workings of OS) this gives them a
HUGE advantage on software development. No one else knows this as
well as Microsoft and it protects and uses this knowledge to it's
sole advantage.
I am by trade an accountant. I have dabbled in computer systems
for years, learning to program in various programming languages. I
can remember Microsofts first set of side products that had direct
impact on me.
QuickBasic was the applications name, it was a wonderful product
and it was all due to competition with Borland and the great
programs that they had. (Borland lost a lot of ground when Microsoft
switched from DOS to Windows version 95. Borland no longer makes a
Basic programming language.)
I can remember the big switch when Microsoft introduced it's
Windows operating system and it's suite of Office products. Suddenly
the things that I knew the most lotus, peachcal, supercal etc...
spreadsheets disappeared from the store shelfs. Everyone had to
learn a new interface, you couldn't share spreadsheets because of
all the things Microsoft did to make it hard to switch from their
product to other products. (This was no doubt by design and still is
by design.) Microsoft now totally dominates the market when it comes
to spreadsheets, but they still lag behind some of the original
spreadsheets ability.
Where our office went from lotus and supercal we acquired more
work, not less, MS Excel created more keystrokes for us and a
decrease in productivity. The macro ability was greatly reduced and
it created for us a very large problem, we had to basically carry
two spreadsheets. One DOS based from ages ago and the other Windows
related (MS Excel). In short we still have not upgraded the majority
of our spreadsheets because Excel does not do as good of job.
In our office we use programs that where written in Basic or
GWbasic many years ago. This ability and language was provided by
Microsoft or IBM with the purchase of an OS many years ago.
Microsoft no longer provides this type of program with the purchase
of the OS, I admit I do find it strange that they will add an
internet browser for free, but won't keep a language that was a
standard feature of the OS for years and years. I am currently
writing Java based programs to replace the programs written in Basic
or GWbasic many years ago. If Microsoft is allowed to drive Java out
of business or goes to big lengths to make sure it does not work
with it's system then nothing I can do will replace those programs
that we do business with now. I do not have the money to buy the
solution from Microsoft. If you pay close attention to the
Government you will find that a lot of Government facilities are now
stuck with the older version of Internet Explorer (version 5.5
service pack 2), because a lot of Government pages are written to
work with Java. The newer version of IE (version 6) will not work
with Java. Why would Microsoft do this? Is it now the most efficient
product when viewing the web? How much will the Government have to
spend to correct these problems? Or will the Government be stuck
using Windows 5.5 with service pack 2 until MS decides it won't want
to support it any longer? If they give it away as part of the OS
package, then it shouldn't be a tool used to destroy the business of
others. It should be made to work with other things out there.
To me it is just like buying an OS for a computer that says it
is designed for use in any IBM compatible PC, but it won't work with
Seagate Hard Drives because our company owns Western Digital. BTW
it's about the only OS available as it has driven every other OS out
of the market, used it's OS to capture market share it does not
deserve, because of unfair competition and it's insider knowledge on
the OS. How does it benefit the public? We have seen that the courts
ruled it was a monopoly.
Now it's up to you the DOJ to fix the tracks so that other
trains can run in and out of that trainstation without being
derailed, your settlement leaves a lot to be desired and actually
rewards Microsoft, does not force them to retreat from the practices
that have hurt so many in the past and cripples innovation.
Dale Dillon
MTC-00008715
From: Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Madams:
It has come to my attention that nine misdirected states are
attempting to thwart the Department of Justice's proposed settlement
with Microsoft. After reading the proposed remedies, I have
concluded that
[[Page 25062]]
these are fair and beneficial to the consumer in the long run. In
the short run, it will serve to employ hundreds of lawyers to
determine what courses of action are acceptable for the company to
pursue.
When the nine states continue to whine about these remedies not
being enough, they are truly letting their ignorance, lack of
understanding of the market, and greed show through. As an example:
Apple makes the only ``crash proof'' desktop computer on the market.
Apple has a 100% market share for that market. Apple refuses to
allow other vendors to manufacture compatible ``crash proof''
hardware. This Apple monopoly locks out any and all competitors,
raises the market price of Apple hardware, reduces the market share
of ``crash proof'' systems, and hence due to that minimal market
size, discourages developers from creating competing products for
the Apple platform. Each of these steps TRULY harms consumers. Were
it not for these foolish policies, Apple would be a true competitor
to Microsoft compatible computers today.
In the days of the USSR (command & control) where only the
government made automobiles, were they the best buys in the country
for a good reason? Yes, it was due to their being the only
automobile available to the few that could afford them. If the
dissenting states were truly worried about consumers and
competition, they would be working through the DOJ to force Apple to
open their market. The fact they are not simply demonstrates their
ulterior motives.
The last 2 large anti-trust cases in U.S. history (AT & T, and
IBM) had the unintended and ugly effect of turning these two symbols
of American technology into bumbling giants void of any current
serious innovation. Please look at the meaningless shell that is now
AT & T before you decide to drag this case on further.
Best regards,
Michael Patrick Chaffey, OCP, CPA
17516 NE 138th St.
Redmond, WA 98052
DISCLOSURE NOTE: I own less than 1000 shares of Microsoft stock,
and have used the company's software products for over 10 years.
MTC-00008717
From: john himes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:46pm
Subject: microsoft
Please let the micrsoft settlement stand and let our economy
recover. This recession started the day Judge Jackson tried to break
up micrsoft. It was a stupid move then and remains the same today.
Thank you
John E. Himes
102 Melvin Ave.
Catonsville Md.
21228
MTC-00008718
From: Lynn B. Boman Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear United States Department of Justice,
I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice
on November 2nd. I am anxious to see this dispute resolved, so I
oppose further action against Microsoft. This settlement is fair,
contains provisions that foster competition, and is good for the
technology industry. Microsoft has pledged to share more information
with other companies and give consumers more choices. Under this
agreement, Microsoft must design future versions of Windows to make
it easier to install non- Microsoft software and must disclose
information about certain internal interfaces in Windows.
The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Thank you for your time,
Lynn B Boman Jr.
MTC-00008719
From: Chris Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 2:57pm
Subject: microsoft problem
hi there:
I was told that I could send an email to you, offering up my 2
cents worth on the microsoft fiasco--I believe that this company's
business practices are beyond irresponsible--I would go so far as to
say that their pure greed has put them in a position wherein one of
their biggest goals is to squash any and all competition--which I
think is a sorry state of affairs at best. with the situation as it
stands now we have a STUPIDLY HUGE percentage of the computer
software being controlled by one company: microsoft. apple remains
the only real competition. the LOSERS are consumers like myself--who
KNOWS where we might be today if microsoft had acted legally over
these past years?
Since microsoft has already been found guilty of multiple
antitrust law violations, my opinion is that they should receive an
extremely harsh penalty indeed; as severe as possible within the
limits of the law. what I've read of the current situation (a fair
bit) only shows the government willing to settle for a light 'slap
on the wrist'.
Let's have some JUSTICE!!!
Thanks for listening,
Chris long
MTC-00008720
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO DOJ,
IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THE MICROSOFT CASE. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
BROUGHT FORTH BY THE DOJ AND NINE STATES SEEMS MORE THAN ENOUGH. I
HAVE HAD A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CONSUMER HAS BEEN HARMED.
DID WE PAY TOO MUCH FOR MICROSOFT PRODUCTS? REPORTS IN THE MEDIA
STATE WE MAY HAVE OVERPAID 20 TO 30 DOLLARS FOR WINDOWS. IF IT'S AN
ISSUE OF THIS AMOUNT, PERHAPS THE INDIVIDUAL HAS MORE PROBLEMS THAN
OWNING A COMPUTER. THE CONSUMER IS ME. THIS LITIGATION WILL NOT HELP
ME IN ANY WAY. I DID NOT ASK FOR IT AND I DON'T WANT IT.
LET'S BE HONEST, THIS IS ABOUT MICROSOFT'S COMPETITION ALWAYS
LAGGING BEHIND THE CURVE. ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS BUILD A BETTER
MOUSE TRAP. THIS CASE HAS HURT OUR ECONOMY AND INVESTORS. IF IT
DOESN'T END NOW, I'M GOING TO BLAME SOME PEOPLE AND NOT BUY THEIR
PRODUCTS...NOT VOTE FOR THEM ETC. WHO'S GOVERNMENT IS THIS ANYWAY?
IF WE DON'T STOP THIS CASE NOW, PERHAPS THE DOOR WILL OPEN FURTHER
FOR AN OVERSEAS COMPETITOR..THINK AIRBUS !
GIL HODGES , REGISTERED VOTER.
MTC-00008721
From: Robert Steffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dears Sirs:
I support the comprehensive agreement reached with the U.S.
Government and Microsoft Corp.. I think the agreement is fair and
will finally end this costly and non-productive litigation. Please
consider my opinion as you make your decision on this matter.
Sincerely;
Robert M. Steffy,
Holtwood, Pa
MTC-00008722
From: Dan Van Fleet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've been involved in the computer industry from before
Microsoft became a widely known company. I remember the 640K
capability of DOS, being what seemed like more than we would ever
need, I admired and respected Microsoft at that point. My how times
have changed.
Today, I find Microsoft's actions to be horrid. I feel much like
a young child in Chicago when he finds out that nice man down the
street is actually a mob boss. The child asks his mother, ``That
man, he kills people?'', his mother responds yes he does. The child,
afraid, still smiles when the man says hi, he takes a bit of candy
when offered, so to not upset the boss. Microsoft is that boss,
ISV's and users are the children.
Through my daily dealings with Microsoft software, I've felt
Microsoft was unfairly using it's power to force it's products on
the public. That has now been proven in court, the proposed
settlement is not a solution. Microsoft has already ignored a
similar solution, and lied about it through demonstrations in court.
Don't let them do it again.
Further, please do not let the actions of 9/11 cause you to go
easy on Microsoft, that would be a travesty of justice. Microsoft is
currently using those events to attain their goals, don't let them
do it. It is a pity that Judge Jackson, so horrified by the
testimony, spoke out of turn, don't let Microsoft take advantage of
his mistake.
Sincerely,
[[Page 25063]]
Dan Van Fleet
IT Director
Dayton, Ohio
MTC-00008723
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:14pm
Subject: Stop the idiocy of litigating against innovation
Please stop spending my tax dollars to litigate against
Microsoft.
MTC-00008724
From: Philip Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
Please settle the Microsoft case with all states and let us, as
the President said, get on with our lives. We, at this critical time
in our country, do not need one more thing to drag down our economy.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Philip J, Robbins
36 Rock Hill Lane
Fort Thomas, KY 41075
MTC-00008725
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:20pm
Subject: Settlement
The Microsoft case should be settled as soon as possible.
D.K. Martin
[email protected]
MTC-00008726
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
This letter is written in support of the Microsoft Settlement
with the hope that the already negotiated agreement will be
finalized so that all parties will be bound by it and therefore
complete the agreement forthwith. It is important that Microsoft
competitors and some misguided states attorneys general are forced
to comply with the already negotiated settlement and finish this
protracted bloodletting at once.
Respectfully,
David C. Mactye, M.D.,
PO Box 50, West Bloomfield, NY 14618
716-370-0361
MTC-00008727
From: Dennis Gignac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I would like to let you know that I have been following this
case since the very beginning and have written to the Wisconsin
State DOJ a number of times expressing my opinion on the subject. I
find it very satisfying that now that there appears to be an end to
this mess it is very close to my original opinion. Anyway, I am
completely in favor of the current settlement arrangement and I feel
strongly that Microsoft has not harmed me in anyway with their
actions in the past. I will agree that Microsoft has taken a hard
line with computer companies and although I see no real anti-trust I
will concede that the USDOJ most likely knows that laws much better
than I do. I will say that my opinion is that Microsoft has done
more to protect the software industry and end users with the stance
they have taken then damage they may have done to competitors.
Anyway. I am strongly in favor of the settlement and it is time
allow Microsoft to get on with their work of adding more features
into their operating systems at will.
Thank you
Dennis Gignac
Brookfield, WI
MTC-00008728
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:27pm
Subject: Opinion
We are in favor of the settlement worked out with Microsoft.
Marlene & Alan Feinstein
MTC-00008729
From: Rollie Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern at U.S. Dept. Of Justice,
I have worked in the computer industry for nearly 28 years. I
have seen many things come and go since the early-to-mid 70's. One
of the most ridiculous things I have witnessed it this incessant
hounding of Microsoft. Why? They are successful. Get over it. Why
are they successful? They build good products for which the public
willingly exchanges value in the form of legal tender. Again, gladly
is the manner in which they (the public and businesses) do so.
Have you ever gone to an Office Depot or Staples or whatever
store and seen anyone pushing people into the aisle with MSFT
products? Any in hammer locks being forced to buy MSFT products
while the Apple side of the aisle (or usually completely different
aisle for Apple since there needs to be a whole aisle just for MSFT
binaries) is nearly vacant? So you have choice, you have a free
market, you have people voting by the millions with their checkbooks
for MSFT products. I have used Sun Microsystems machines, which I
consider better than most Intel-based machines for many tasks. I can
and will use them when needed. The Sun Solaris operating system is
excellent. In many cases better than Windows2000 or any other OS.
There are a number of great applications. If there were not why
would SUNW be a multi-billion dollar commercial success? I have
Linux at my disposal on my Intel-based systems as well. I can run
that and have. It's good for a lot of things. It has applications
too. People run them. In many cases they are even free. You get what
you pay for. That's why I have CHOSEN to buy Microsoft products for
all my family's home needs. It's why I use them on my business
laptop as well. They work and they work very well.
Why not consider this and stop wasting my and other taxpayers'
money by hounding MSFT any further? Jealously of their success is
just some warped commercial form of class envy. Let someone else
step up and do a better job than Microsoft and they market will take
care of itself. Please get closure on this Microsoft litigation and
free them to focus on doing their fair share, which they likely are
more than willing to do, and channel their valuable resources into
helping to get the economy into high gear again. Hounding Microsoft
any further is wasteful of taxpayer resources, wasteful of Microsoft
and Microsoft shareholder resources and just generally bad for
everyone.
Thanks much,
Roland Schmidt
Auburn, CA 95602
MTC-00008730
From: Aaron Freed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft
I am a systems administrator and have been for 15 years. I have
held an MCSE since 1999.
I have been working with Microsoft products since Dos 2.11, and
since Windows 3.0. I have worked with all versions of Windows NT
starting with version 3.50 and up through the current verison of
Windows XP.
I have spent many, many hours with Microsoft products, learning
them, supporting them, trouble-shooting them.
I have been involved with Linux (RedHat) on a serious level
since Version 7.1 (on a less serious level, since Version 6.2).
With Microsoft, when there is a problem, I find that the
solution is about 70% trying to figure out what the right menu
option or button is to select to elicit a dialog that allows me to
change the desired settings. 20% of the time is spent trying to find
away around Microsoft's attempts to prevent me from ``doing
something dangerous, that might harm my software''. And 10% of the
time, I am actually resolving the problem.
The key to troubleshooting Microsoft problems seems to be in
rote memorization of menu-options, dialogs and buttons needed to
change a desired setting.
The key, with Linux, is usually a matter of editing a script or
possibly recoding some software or component, which generally
requires not only an understanding of why the problem happened, but
also how the ``fix'' for it works--or at least knowing that you have
access to the source code and other documentation that will help you
to understand how the fix works, why it works, and how the program
being fixed works.
In short, it is something like the difference between knowing
how to go to the store and purchase a loaf of cake, versus knowing
how to actually make a cake from scratch (with documented and
usually fairly clearly explained instructions).
Microsoft is a closed system, a ``black box'', if you will. You
generally put in your data and you get a result, but you really
don't know how that result is generated. And when that result is not
what is expected or desired, your recourses for figuring out why are
quite limited, because you aren't allowed inside the ``black box''.
[[Page 25064]]
Linux, on the other hand, is an open system. Like Microsoft, you
put in your data and get a result out. However, if the result is not
what is desired, or expected, you have the option of taking apart
the ``black box'' and tinkering with its internal workings to make
it work the way you want it to.
Microsoft charges you for the privilege of using their
software--their marketing effort focused primarily on emphasizing
the claim that MS is easy to use and that ``if you know one program,
you pretty much know them all.''
Linux makes no such claim. Nor are you ever charged for it.
However, with a little know-how and a willingness to learn and try
to understand, what you give up in a generic, standardized
interface, you more than make up for in terms of control of your
system and your data. And, surprisingly, it is not very difficult to
customize your system to make it just as `generically easy to use'
as Windows. (Frequently even more so.)
Now, Microsoft wants to offer us the ``.Net'' option, where we
completely surrender control of our system to them in the form of
paying a monthly or yearly subscription fee to ``rent'' their
software. Ostensibly, this alleviates the need for upgrades,
maintenance, and troubleshooting on the part of the end-user. In
truth, in removes the ``ownership'' of the user's data from him,
because, should the user decide not to renew this ``subscription''
to Microsoft's ``.Net'', service, they will find that they can no
longer access their data because it is stored in formats understood
only by Microsoft.Net programs.
Not only are we being asked to surrender control of our
computers to Microsoft, we are being asked to surrender control of
our personal data. And, on top of that, we are being required to pay
Microsoft a montly fee for the priviledge!
Slavery is one thing. Asking the slaves to pay for the
priviledge of being enthralled to a master who hardly has their best
interests at heart is just plain stupid.
I choose not to be part of this.
I choose an operating system that does not require daily reboots
just to keep running properly.
I choose not to spend hours of my time trying to navigate
through installation routines that have been made Byzantine in their
complexity--in order to protect Microsoft's software license.
I choose not to use an operating system and software
applications that were designed with the assumption that I not only
don't know what I am doing, but also that I am too stupid to learn.
I choose not to be required to call Microsoft and inform them of
every significant change I make to my hardware.
I choose not to be an unwitting ``beta test site'' for products
that have not been properly quality controlled because it was deamed
more important to rush the product out the door in order to make a
few extra sales.
I choose Linux.
I choose FREEDOM.
With Linux, when there is a problem, I find
Aaron [email protected]
[email protected]
``The truth is out there... But I have no idea who left it
there, nor why.''
MTC-00008731
From: ereomsncom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:37pm
Subject: Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
It is very important that the case is settled once and for all.
I don't think Microsoft did anything wrong. This Country was build
on free enterprize and the freedom to inovate products and to have a
patent on the products they they invent. No one can just come along
and try to get in on the product to make money..
That is wrong.
Liz Reo
506 S. Owen
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
[email protected]
847 398 6151
MTC-00008732
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The is a bought prosecution...And a shame to our country.
MTC-00008733
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair. That company is a
national treasure. There is no question that without the technology
that they delivered to us, I and many others would not be as
computer capable as we are now.
Phil Boggs
MTC-00008734
From: Roger Reece
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my support of the November 2, 2001
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The
last thing the country needs is our benevolent government spending
additional time and resources pursuing Microsoft that ultimately
benefits competitors who are using the legal system in stead of
superior products to defeat Microsoft in the market place. There are
more important issues for the government to address. Our economy is
on a down slope, unemployment is on the rise, public health and
related legacy environmental issues need to be acted on, and money
laundering is requiting greater amounts of manpower with its
increasing threat as food for ciminal endeavors.
The US should stay focused on the events of the recent past and
wake up to the fact that petty legal means to chip away at
Microsoft's hard-won success benefits none but a few. Common
knowledge is that international criminals have us in their
crosshairs; what rights have Microsoft so violated to deserve such
scrutiny? Microsoft, if anything, is at the forefront helping
individuals and the country realize our potential through leading
edge technology, philanthropy and enterprise also benefiting
Microsoft's employees, vendors and end-users that span the country
and the globe.
Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft has accepted to
undergo major changes in the way they conduct business. It includes
the following: Granting new rights to computer manufactures to
configure their systems to access various Windows features as they
see fit.
Microsoft must design future versions of Windows to make it
easier to install non-Microsoft software.
The DOJ will create an ongoing technical oversight committee. It
will have access to various Microsoft trade secrets and intellectual
property--a painful right to ownership for any company to give up.
Finally, the settlement negates the rights of no one as
competitors can still sue Microsoft if they feel Microsoft isn't
complying with these terms. Please settle these legal actions under
the current agreed terms and redirect your energies to the slim that
is out to distroy America.
MTC-00008735
From: John Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Friends:
I am writing to support the Microsoft settlement. I am a 4th
grade teacher and a building computer contact in our district. Our
school, along with others would welcome any and all help for our
technology program. Because of budget cuts, our entire computer
budget relies solely on our state TEACH grant which amounts to about
$40,000. The inservice portion of our budget is gone, and almost no
training takes place. Hardware and software budgets are about one
fourth of 3 years ago. Please settle this agreement and help us and
other schools.
Thank you for your consideration.
Have a GREAT DAY!
John Peter
Spooner Elementary School
1821 Scribner
Spooner, WI 54801
(715) 635-2174 ext. 1227
(715) 635-7984 FAX
Every Child Deserves a GREAT School!
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008736
From: tnjb123
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough! Let's get on with the Microsoft settlement. In
the interest of the economy and all parties concerned, pandering to
crybaby competitors and special interest groups needs to stop. It is
in all citizen's interest to stop the litigation.
Respectfully,
Thomas J. Barbercheck
321 Mary Drive
New Albany, IN 47150
MTC-00008737
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:03pm
[[Page 25065]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think you all would be well advised to drop this case
forthwith.
Larry Townsend
MTC-00008738
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
We understand that the District Court is accepting public
comment regarding the Microsoft Settlement. It is in this regard
that we submit the following. We strongly believe that the
settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties
involved. We further believe that this entire action over nearly
four years, has been motivated and sustained not by consumer
interest or demand, but has been due to the aggressive efforts of a
few special interests, primarily Microsoft's competitors. The
spinoff effect of this activity has negatively impacted the American
economy and has not been of benefit to consumers.
We urge that the District Court accepts this settlement. The
last thing the American economy needs is more litigation on this
matter, that may benefit only a few competitors, while further
damaging consumers.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Roger W. Ponto
8611 NE 26th Place
Bellevue WA 98004
Phone: 452.453.1979
Fax: 425.453.2595
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00008739
From: Tony Domit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer and engineer who has worked in the computer
industry for over 35 years, I support and encourage Microsoft to
continue innovating in the world of high tech. As a consumer, I am
delighted with the price, performance, and ease of use they provide
with their software. This is particularly the case when comparing
their current offerings to those available ten years ago and
earlier.
My understanding is that DOJ's antitrust responsibilities are to
protect the consumer. I, and nearly every user of Microsoft products
I have ever spoken with are delighted with their products. I don?t
believe it is DOJ's responsibilities to level the competitive
playing field nor do I buy the allegations that Microsoft's
practices have stifled competition at the expense of the consumer.
I believe the DOJ's current proposed remedies are more than
adequate to punish Microsoft for their intense competitive practices
and would like to see an end put to all the ?lawyering? particularly
by many of the state attorney generals.
Sincerely,
Tony Domit
MTC-00008740
From: Mohammad Nawaz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ settlement with Microsoft is in the right direction. I
do agree with the settlement and hope to get this thing over soon.
Regards,
Mohammad Nawaz
779 Wood Ave
Edison, NJ--08820
MTC-00008741
From: Mike Thibodeau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Our economy is always thriving in proportion to how Free it is.
Please keep your Hands Off!! Microsoft has improved the standard of
living for everyone in the US, more than anyone ever cares to
acknowledge. But more important is the principle--this is supposed
to be a Free Market!
Thanks,
Mike Thibodeau
Derry NH 03038
603-234-7411
Mike Thibodeau
[email protected]
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/mthibodeau
MTC-00008742
From: Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Dept. of Justice
The Tunney settlement of the Microsoft debacle is fair and
equitable. It doesn't destroy any one or any business. It evens the
playing field as far as laws are concerned. Let the detractors
create their own platform. Lets get on with the economy and
business. By the way, if you want to stifle someones business do it
to the Chinese. Fair Trade Status for them is a joke.
Perry Arnold
Chandler, AZ
MTC-00008743
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:39pm
Subject: Settle with Microsoft
Close out this case in favor of Microsoft 100%. Let the market
place prevail. Let free enterprise ring.
MTC-00008745
From: Jane D. Alley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case as soon as possible without further
litigation.
MTC-00008746
From: Ken Landon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As a consumer of Microsoft's and other companies' software
products, I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
I was saddened and dismayed that the Department of Justice chose
to prosecute Microsoft in the first place. I find Microsoft's
products to be extremely valuable in both my career and my home use.
The company has earned its dominant position in the market. It is
every American's right--including the people who own and operate
Microsoft--to be left free to ``sink or swim'' in the marketplace.
And it is my right as a citizen of the United States to be allowed
to patronize Microsoft without the interference of court-imposed
antitrust restrictions on the company.
I respectfully urge the Department of Justice to drop all
charges against Microsoft. Microsoft is a great American company
that should be left free to operate without any antitrust
restrictions.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Landon
200 Clinton Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
718-694-0226
MTC-00008747
From: VINCENT PENZO
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
My only comment on the settlement is--there shouldn't be any. In
fact, there shouldn't have been any prosecution to begin with. The
government was created to protect people's rights, not tell
productive businessmen how to run their companies. Bill Gates has
every right to produce and sell his products on his own terms--with
those who wish to do business with him. Anyone who doesn't like it
can try to build a better mouse-trap. Enough whining from lesser-
able competitors! As for consumers--remember when PC's cost $10,000?
Leave Bill alone!
The DOJ should have spent those millions of dollars all through
'90s on something important-- like tracking down the Islamic
fundamentalist's money laundering schemes.
Let's put the `Justice' back in the `DOJ'!
Sincerely,
Vincent Penzo
Everett, MA
[email protected]
MTC-00008748
From: GARFOOT, ROGER D
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:06pm
Subject: Opposition to Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement
I do not believe the DOJ negotiated settlement will protect any
group (consumer, manufacturer, software developer) from Microsoft's
ability to extend their existing monopolies in desktop operating
systems and office productivity suites into new areas such as server
operating systems, internet infrastructure and middleware.
Microsoft's control of the API's for the monopoly supported
operating system (OS) allows them to tie new products (middleware,
frameworks, etc.) into the OS in ways that other developers can not
match. Once its in the OS, competing products don't stand much
chance. It is far from a level competitive playing field when
developing software products that compete with Microsoft. A prime
example is Microsoft's lack of support for Java in Windows XP.
[[Page 25066]]
Microsoft found room to include all their language runtimes,
middleware, partner applications, etc. in Windows XP but claims
including a Java JVM would make the OS to large. Come on, as
delivered by Microsoft Windows XP is already approximately 1.5 GB.
The Java JVM is only about 5 MB.
Microsoft also made it much more difficult to add plug-ins into
Windows XP and Internet Explorer (IE) which discourages use of
competing technologies. Java has always been a threat to requiring
everyone to run Windows OS and has been attacked by Microsoft in
much the same way as Microsoft attacked Netscape. When Microsoft
could not embrace, extend and extinguish Java, they blocked
improvements and developed their own Java clone.
Microsoft is an abusive monopolist in the same way in which
Standard Oil was an abusive monopolist. The proposal by the nine
states not agreeing to this settlement is much more likely to
prevent additional abuses.
As an IT professional, I know that the biggest reasons Microsoft
is able to maintain their monopoly in corporate desktop OS's is the
integration of desktop Windows and Windows servers, Microsoft
Outlook integration with Exchange and the lack of availability of
Microsoft Office on platforms such as Linux and UNIX. The proposed
DOJ settlement will do nothing to rectify this situation and allow
increased consumer/corporate choice in desktop OS's
Roger D. Garfoot
Computer Applications Engineer
T&D Computing--Application Development
Omaha Public Power District
444 S. 16th St. Mall
(Mailstop: 6W/EP3)
Omaha, NE 68102-2247
Phone: (402) 636-3175
Fax: (402) 636-3947
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00008751
From: william scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
It seems to me that the Microsoft settlement is sufficent and
adequate. Plus enough tax money has been expended trying to stifle a
successful company.
Sincerely,
W.I. Scott
MTC-00008752
From: Bob Coleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I applaud your efforts to settle the Microsoft issue. My opinion
on the entire matter is that failed competitors used the US justice
system to enhance their business position to the detriment of
consumers and to the detriment of the information industry.
We needed a cheap, stable, common system which Microsoft
provided. The initial suit was unwarranted. The proposed settlement
by the DOJ and MS is much more punitive to MS than what I consider
fair, but if it brings this issure to closure, I can see its merits.
MTC-00008753
From: FRANK MACK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This matter has dragged on far too long and I urge the
settlement go forward with no further delay.
MTC-00008754
From: arnebBronton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear General Aschcroft:
Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, freedom of
worship, however, this great Country used to have freedom to
innovate, create and develop processes that benefited all of
mankind, the developer as well as the general public worldwide.
Unfortunately, the Justice Department, under former President
Clinton, attacked Microsoft, a company that revolutionized the
industrial world. What used to take days can now be accomplished in
minutes. Such innovation of course, also enhanced the company's
share value which benefited all of it's shareholders, those visible
and those not so visible in 401K's, IRA's, pension plans, etc.
Unfortunately, when the Government continues it's attacks on
companies such as Microsoft and the like, the desire to create and
invest becomes stifled. Just look to Europe when governments
controlled development.
I know we have a now have a President who looks to the future
and wants to encourage further development. I am sorry to say that I
feel we still have a number of narrow minded people in the Justice
Department and with nine State's Attorneys who have the mind set of
if I have 6 they are entitled to 3 whether they have invested in
risk, market, innovation or not. This type of thinking should have
been abolished with the fall of the Berlin Wall as it has no longer
a place in a free society.
I respectfully solicit your assistance in ridding our Country of
these frivolous lawsuits that is harming companies, and millions of
hardworking taxpayers, investors and retirees.
Sincerely,
Anre Bronton
4724 Oak Leaf Drive
Naples, FL 34119
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008755
From: John R. Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those having challenges:
How long must this go on? As an private user of Microsoft
operating systems since DOS originated, for me 1975?? Microsoft has
been most cooperative in solving any challenges that I have had.
Just because they have been successful in developing good systems
and continuing to do so, why must government keep anyone from doing
so?
This computer is my 4th computer with each having Microsoft's
operating systems. Currently have Windows XP. It is about time we
stop interfering in the lives of corporations and individuals who
are intuitive to getting ahead of the crowds.
Deacon John
MTC-00008756
From: William Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was pleased with the Nov 2nd settlement agreement in the
Microsoft antitrust suit . . . the settlement seems reasonable and
well thought-out . . . it requires significant changes in how
Microsoft develops and markets its products.
I believe that revisiting the settlement and/or further
litigation will have a negative impact on our economy, slowing its
recovery and is basically a last ditch effort by Microsoft's
competitors to further curtail the company's operations.....with the
troubled condition of our economy and budgets, it does not make
sense to spend more time and money on a settled lawsuit.
William Stone
82 River Dr.
Appleton, WI 54915
MTC-00008757
From: Pat Tormey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a software developer who's small business depends heavily on
Microsoft products.
I would like the DOJ to settle this matter as quickly as
possible.
In a capitalist economy the people ``vote'' with their wallets
and the people have already voted in favor of Microsoft. We Like
them! They are good for business. Small businesses depend on the
affordable tools provided by Microsoft. If we didn't, then we would
buy our tools from the other guy.
The DOJ is not protecting the consumer they are only shielding
other large businesses from the free market.
Thanks to the DOJ's efforts to ``help'', we now have serious
instability in the economy. The DOJ's efforts have severely damaged
millions of retirement plans and pushed thousands of small
businesses out of existence. AND STILL Sun Micro Systems reports
``Net loss for the first quarter was $158 million'' and Netscape
can't even GIVE AWAY its Internet browser. Let's face it, these guys
cannot compete even with the DOJs thumb on the scales of justice.
DOJ, please settle this action as soon as you can. Your efforts
to ``help'' the consumer are killing us off.
Pat Tormey PE
www.FourSquare.com
MTC-00008758
From: Ron Rouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
No more litigation, enough is enough.
[[Page 25067]]
MTC-00008759
From: joseph a santillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:48pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
I would like to applaud the settlement which was reached. As a
consumer, I believe that the settlement will provide benefits to me.
Further, I think that the economy in general will benefit.
Sincerely,
Joe Santillo,
Gouldsboro, PA.
MTC-00008760
From: Judy Ponto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:57pm
Subject: freedom
Our freedom in the USA does guarantee our right to free speech
and to enterprise. This should also include innovation and mfst has
strived for innovation through their products.
Judy Ponto
[email protected]
MTC-00008761
From: Judy Ponto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:01pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
Americans have always had a freedom of speech. Msft has used
innovation to the nth degree for their customers. Please listen to
our plea for contined innovation without government control.
Judy Ponto
[email protected]
MTC-00008762
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a private citizen and a small investor, I believe that
Microsoft has already paid a high price for alledged wrong doing. I
believe that Microsoft is only being victimized by its success in
the marketplace.
Any further action against Microsoft is totally unfair.
MTC-00008763
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
please leave microsoft alone!!!! they produce a product that
millons use at a bargian price. this attact has hurt the economy and
dirupted thier pursiut of future products.
guy e estes
stockholder
thank you. . . . .
MTC-00008764
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I belive that the settlement is fair and good for the U.S.A.
Lets get on with the other important issues in our country.
j.w. moore
6967 gates rd
gates mills, ohio 44040
MTC-00008765
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I am against any prosecution against Microsoft. The PC as it is
today is the result of this company. All the inovations have been
made by them and I for one am very glad to be a part of this
company. Think again
MTC-00008766
From: Pat (038) Jim Ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this settlement once and for all. The government
will only be acting in the people's interest if this problem is
stopped. Can't lawyers find something better to do with their time?
Pat Ferguson
MTC-00008767
From: Hugh Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To all Anti-Trust, Anti-Microsoft supporters:
What you are doing to Microsoft is worse than what bin Laden did
to the Twin Towers. Your target is obviously the same as his: US
Capitalism. Drop all further action against Microsoft and go back
into your AntiTrust caves. Rejoice in the totally evil and
irrational damage you've already inflicted on the US economy and
Microsoft. You and the Taliban can celebrate together.
Hugh Roberts
3636 New Karleen Road
Hephzibah, GA 30815
MTC-00008768
From: Gary P. Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please back off this company. They are operating in a free
market society.
Thank you.
Gary Beck
MTC-00008769
From: Fred Oberkamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement??
To Whom it May Concern:
After review of the alleged ``Microsoft Settlement'', I am
simply amazed. I have been in management and management consulting
in the Information Technologies industry for over 25 years and this
settlement is about as close to a whitewash as anything I have ever
seen.
Microsoft has been ``licking its chops'' for the education
market for years and you are willing to give it to them with this
settlement. Schools are the training ground for young minds. What
our children learn in school will be carried out into the business
world with them. You are giving Microsoft the absolute and
undisputed authority to monopolize this market with their ``free''
give away. I cannot wait to see Microsoft's advertising campaign in
about a year when they can legitimately claim that they have been
``selected'' by 100% of the schools in the country as their
Operating System of choice, thanks to your settlement. This does not
even consider that most of the refurbished equipment that Microsoft
has proposed to give to the schools will probably not be compatible
with its newer Operating Systems. Schools being as tight with
budgets as they are known to be will probably spend a fortune
upgrading the equipment rather than just get rid of it like they
should.
You are also opening up all of our schools to hackers with this
settlement. This is due to the well-documented (and possibly as of
yet unfound) security ``holes'' in the current Microsoft Operating
Systems. Just what this country needs is to have our school systems
spending millions of dollars to fight electronic invasions. Has
anyone considered how devastating that could be to this country?
Furthermore, Microsoft continues to gobble up small software
companies that would have been their competition. At this time, that
can only be blamed on the greed of the owners of those companies and
Microsoft's total disregard for any previous agreement they may have
had to cease their predatory practices with the Department of
Justice.
It is my personal opinion and that of many others I have spoken
with, that we, the American taxpayers and citizens, have been sold
down the river with this proposed settlement. If this process is
allowed to continue, this settlement will only serve to make it
appear to the normal citizen that enough money can buy its own
justice. That may seem like a rather harsh statement, but companies
like AT&T have gone through far more serious penalties than this
proposed settlement even comes close to and they have survived quite
well.
Thank you for your time,
F.J. Oberkamp
MTC-00008770
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Public Comment
May it please the court:
I am a systems professional and actually install, configure,
maintain and support the products made by Microsoft and other
software publishers. I work for a transit agency and am not a
supporter of either side in this case (Microsoft or its rivals: Sun-
AOL/Netscape-Oracle-Linux-Apple.) My mission is to keep real users
working productively, to manage change and maximize my agency's
investments in technology so as to give the taxpayers the best
results for every dollar spent on computers and software. I have
worked in help desk, LAN security and now Internet Administration
for my agency. I have no personal interest in this case and am not
affiliated with either camp (MS vs ABM, where ABM=Anyone But
Microsoft.)
In short, I understand the delicate balance between software
design and real-world
[[Page 25068]]
usability. While those in the legal profession are increasingly
knowledgeable about computer systems, there are some details that
must seem capricious and arbitrary. Also, some of the arguments
between Microsoft and those in the computer industry who oppose
Microsoft have distorted some of the real facts about:
1. the relationship between the operating system and bundled
applications
2. availability of API entry points and usage information in the
operating system that can be used by programs
3. the benefit of providing internal source code from
Microsoft's products
4. the use of monopoly power by Microsoft to stifle its
competitors Let me offer some observations about these four issues
(I will keep it short, but will gladly provide additional
information if asked by the court.)
1. It benefits the consumer when a free application is included.
This should be encouraged and Microsoft should not be seen as
predatory by bundling Internet Explorer, Messenger, Media Player,
Movie Maker or any other software. However, Microsoft should make it
easier for users to NOT use their software, or to change their
minds. Creating software that is deliberately unstable to make a
competitor look bad by making their applications fail is predatory
and should be discouraged. These two aspects are connected: if they
want to give you a free web browser, fine, but they should allow you
to uninstall it, use another product and never sabotage a user's
work to gain competitive advantage.
2. An Operating System must have clearly defined entry and exit
points for all supported services: connectivity, fax, applications,
chat, sound, video, interprocess communication and transparent error
messages all rely on system calls and other API resources. To
withhold any known API information is anti-competitive. If the
systems division writes a ``special'' interface to optimize an
application division program, that is anti-competitive. Any API
information available to Microsoft's programmers should be
documented publicly (and well!) to benefit the public.
3. Computers that crash can cause loss and even harm. Allowing
programming errors (bugs) to remain, or withholding information
about the underlying operating system idiosyncrasies from the
general public should be penalized. Computers are increasingly used
to maintain and monitor critical processes. Someday, even life
support systems might rely on Windows internals for stability and
correct processing. Opening the source code to all major components
would allow peer review and improvement of the whole system.
4. Microsoft's business practices are consistent with American
industry, however because of the sheer power that one sole vendor
possesses in this market, Microsoft's dictating terms to
manufacturers (no discount means a manufacturer suffers a
disadvantage that usually puts them out of business) is very bad for
consumers. All licenses should be full licenses, no product should
be abandoned so Microsoft can sell a newer version. There should be
Home and Professional versions, and all Home licenses should be very
cheaply ($20) upgradeable to the current version. Professional
versions should be about $50 to upgrade to the current version.
Microsoft should not place limitations, stipulations or other
coercive mechanisms to force users to buy a new version. If
Microsoft is making a free version of an application available to
users of the latest OS version, there should also be a comparable
program for older systems at the same cost.
Proposed Remedy: The present monopoly can only be remedied by
having two companies like Microsoft. One for home, one for business.
Microsoft Home: Windows XP Home, MSN, MSNBC, Microsoft games, The
Zone, Works, Money, Educational and Entertainment software. Also all
hardware mice, game devices, keyboard, etc. Microsoft Business
Windows XP Pro, XP Server, Advanced Server, IlS, SQL, Languages,
Office Applications (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access, Publisher),
embedded applications, handheld PCs.
Both companies should offer a one-time upgrade to any user
surrendering a Windows license, users must provide name and address
and perform some product activation to connect the upgrade to the
user. The license should be transferable to new systems owned by the
same user. The upgrades should cover the costs to Microsoft but not
become a profit center. This remedies the millions of Americans who
paid for a working operating system and are still waiting. Both
companies would have to specify and coordinate the future of Windows
API and services, this information would be public to encourage
competitors to Windows. If ever Windows fell to less than 50 percent
of market share of new computer sales, this provision would be
removed for every subsequent year that Windows constituted less than
50 percent of the market for operating systems.
Both companies would be enjoined from and penalized for anti-
competitive behavior, including limiting user rights to compare and
publicize any Microsoft product, manipulating manufacturers' rights
to install or not install any software, and to sell systems with no
operating system at all if they choose. Also, Microsoft must refrain
from blatantly lying about competitors as they recently did to
Novell. ``Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt'' are bad for the consumer,
bad for the marketplace and ultimately bad for America.
All Operating System API's, including handling of multimedia,
files, data and/or network connections must be publicly documented.
Sufficient penalty should exist to insure conformance. No Microsoft
product should be designed to fail if not used with Microsoft
products or products from Microsoft's business panners, present or
future. In other words, all programs should have an equal chance of
operating properly, and deliberate interference with programs or
connections not provided by Microsoft or its partners should
constitute a punishable offense.
In summary, let me say that while the law may seem to make this
a case between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, it must be
remembered that the whole purpose of antimonopoly law is to protect
the consumer and the American marketplace. Any solution that leaves
Microsoft richer for its use of manipulative licensing, unscrupulous
practices, outright rigging of product comparisons or other blatant
falsehoods to prevent marketplace competition is unacceptable.
Microsoft charged home users to buy Windows 3.0, then again for 3.1,
then again for 95 and 98 and 98 SE, then again for ME. I paid for
``Windows'' six times (eight if you consider that I also bought
Windows 386 and Windows for Workgroups.) I paid each time like I was
buying a perfected product but never got an OS that did not crash.
This is like buying a TV that does not work, waiting for a fix and
being told you have to pay for the SAME TV all over again . . . six,
seven, eight times!
Business users have also been taken to the cleaners by
Microsoft's marketing muscles. I am sure others have noted that
Microsoft's EULA promises nothing from Microsoft other than media
that is readable, yet requires you to give up all kinds of unrelated
rights (like the stipulation that you can not use Windows to compile
a list of Windows bugs, mistakes, criticisms of the product or
performance comparisons!)
Thank you for this opportunity to offer my opinion,
John Rosengarten
Internet Administrator
MIS Internet Services
Pace Suburban Bus Service
desk 847 228-2348
fax 847 228-3596
[email protected]
MTC-00008771
From: Brian Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I believe it's time to end the litigation in this matter. A
settlement is on the table. For the sake of the economy put this
matter to rest.
Brian Ward
MTC-00008772
From: Roberto A.Perez--CARGAMERICAS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I THINK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE
AND LET THEM GROW EVEN FURTHER SO THAT NOT ONLY USA BUT THE WHOLE
WORLD CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR PROGRESS. I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND
THAT BEING GOOD AND SUCCESSFUL SHOULD BE PENALIZED BUT INSTEAD
REWARDED SINCE WITHOUT THE MICROSOFT WINDOWS SYSTEM WE ALL WOULD BE
YEARS BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY.
I DO NOT RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM MICROSOFT BUT I AM A BUSINESSMAN
AND I HATE TO SEE MY POSSIBILITIES CUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN WORKING
HARD AND THEREFORE MY SUCCESS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT
DECISIONS. OF COURSE
[[Page 25069]]
THERE ARE OTHER COMPANIES THAT WANT MICROSOFT PENALIZED SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HAD THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE KNOW HOW TO DO WHAT
MICROSOFT DID. MY ANSWER TO THAT IS: TOUGH LUCK FOR THEM AND THEY
SHOULD STRIVE TO BE EVEN BETTER THAN MICROSOFT RATHER THAN LOOKING
FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THEIR JOB IN CUTTING THEIR SUCCESS.
VERY TRULY YOURS,
ROBERTO A. PEREZ
10106 S.W. 93RD. PLACE
MIAMI, FLA. 33176
MTC-00008773
From: John Travitzky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:35pm
Subject: no subject>
From: John James Travitzky
59727 Drexel Road
Yucca Valley, CA 92284
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse;
I am writing this letter in protest of the proposed Microsoft
vs. U.S. settlement. I believe that allowing Microsoft to ``donate''
software/hardware at retail cost is giving them an unfair advantage
in the Educational fields. The outcome would most likely be that
Microsoft writes off full retail values on any ``donations'',
therefore inflating value of the collection of debt from them. This
would be a disservice to both the public, and the government.
The point of ``free technical support'' is the same as above in
reasoning. The ``cost'' of Microsoft technical support is almost
exclusively a maintenance issue, rather than a support issue. What I
mean is, When using Windows machines, you almost always have to rely
on others to keep your machine running. I have personally done many
``repairs'' that were nothing more than transferring a couple of
letters mistyped in commands, or, in other cases, downloading a
driver from an internet source. Other computers historically have
needed far less maintenance, tech support, or repairs. The hourly
wage charged by Microsoft for ``tech support'' or repairs could be
inflated, therefore giving them another ``out'' in having to pay the
full penalty.
I am extremely concerned with the proposal1s ``patriotic''
overtones... that they (Microsoft) have utilized in the settlement.
Microsoft is one of the worlds1 largest companies, and they are now
``offering'' to supply our poorest and most undereducated schools
with their computers, software, and tech support. While this, in
light of our immense needs in the educational fields is a great
thing, it is not really an offer, but simply a way to ``write off''
expenditures that are grossly inflated, pay off the penalty of this
crime, and make the company look more humanitarian than they really
are. They have been building libraries, offering ``free software'',
and hardware within the educational community since their inception,
and still, they are not a leader in this highly competitive market.
This brings on my next point.
By allowing Microsoft to ``donate'' to the educational community
in lieu of payment for their crime, you are in essence, forgiving
their debt, and allowing them to further their grasp in a field that
has been held by their long time business competitor, Apple
Computer, Inc. As a 17 year user of both Window based and MacOS
based computers, I find it hard to believe this proposed settlement
is plausible or legal.
It negates the penalty of the convicted, allows them a further
reach into the pockets of their competitor, and, does so at the
consumers1 expense.
By accepting the Microsoft proposal, you would take revenues
from one of the most innovative companies in the computer industry.
Apple Computers, Inc. They are known and respected in both the
educational and business fields as a forerunner... one to look at,
and emulate. Windows itself is an emulation, or, to be more precise,
a copy of the Mac Graphic user interface. The reason Apple is known
as forerunners is because they ``look beyond the box''. Apple is
known for going to great expense for their research and development.
Many competitors in the Windows community openly (and proudly) copy
the applications, interface design, or characteristics unique to
Apple or Mac Computers. . Apple will not be able to continue its
innovative and respected history without sales, and, as you know,
Apple sells large amounts of computers in the educational market.
they are number one in sales for 16 of 17 years in this field. By
allowing Microsoft a 1 billion dollar foothold into this field, you
are announcing the downfall of a great computer company.
Thank you for allowing me to share my personal feelings on this
matter. Please do NOT allow Microsoft to flood our educational
market with outdated systems. Do not allow them to ``pay'' the
public back by granting overcharged tech support. Do not allow them
to take highly needed sales from their competitors in lieu of debt
repayment. Do not grant them leadership in a field that has never
been theirs in computing history, at the public1s expense. Lastly,
and most importantly, do not insult Justice by saying that granting
Microsoft these unfair advantages, that they will have paid for
their crime.
Respectfully,
John James Travitzky
MTC-00008774
From: HOWMAR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am concerned about the Tunney Act which is before the District
Court for settlement. It appears to me that the settlement agreed to
by Microsoft is adequate. It is beyond me why lawyers and weak
competitors have so much influence as to affect how a great company,
that has done so much to advance the computor and internet,
operates. If you will notice the current economic situation and the
attack on Microsoft corresponds. The settlement should be completed
and this should be put behind us so the economy will move forward.
I live in one of the states that has not signed on to the
settlement and I can tell you that this is only because of the idiot
that serves as our Attorney General and does not reflect the opinion
of the people of West Virginia.
Thanks for your consideration
Howard Mays
103 Riverview Lane
Beckley, WV 25801
[email protected]
MTC-00008775
From: David J. Loomis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:47pm
Subject: USAGLoomis--David--1023--0102
46 Cranberry Road
North Attleboro, Massachusetts 02760
January 4, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to let you know that I was pleased with the actions
of your department in reaching a settlement agreement that the
states can accept. The settlement is fair and reasonable. Through
the agreement, Microsoft will be a more responsible industry leader
and can maintain its competitive ability.
I am an avid user of Microsoft products and services, and feel
that its innovation has allowed our country to take a lead in the
world technology market. I agree that the competition should be
protected, but this does not change the fact that Microsoft has
achieved success because of the dependability and usefulness of its
products. Microsoft will share critical information about the
internal workings of Windows; that is enough protection of the
competition.
The agreement is mutually beneficial for Microsoft and the
competition. As far as I am concerned, I feel it was an overall
success. Thank you for your efforts, and taking the time to read
this letter.
Sincerely,
David Loomis
MTC-00008776
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
In my opinion, the entire Microsoft issue is about money and
another way for the law profession to ``feather their nest''. It has
nothing to do with antitrust, monopolies or protecting the ``John Q
Public''. Microsoft does NOT have monopoly on anything. There are
several other operating system options available for which the end
user can use the browser he or she prefers. As a matter of fact, he
or she can use the browser of choice with Windows!
I use Microsoft products on a regular basis. It is my choice to
use these products because, as a developer, my customer base also
uses Microsoft products and in order for my
[[Page 25070]]
products to function on my customers equipment, I must produce
software that will work on their equipment. If the customer base
used Unix, Apple, or O/S 2, I would probably go that route.
Every dollar Microsoft spends to protect itself from frivolous
litigation means that I am going to have to spend more for products
I use. As with taxes, corporations do not pay for the cost of
litigation-- their customers do! The only winners going this route
are those folks with ``Esquire'' after their names.
Please end this as soon as possible. ``Trickle Down Economics''
goes both ways, you know!
Sincerely,
Robert L. Dahlberg
Carol E. Dahlberg
145 W Midway Blvd
Broomfield, CO 80020
MTC-00008777
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs & Ladies:
I feel that Microsoft has been unduly charged in this matter. It
is my best interest and the USA's that they be allowed to do
business as they have in the past. I am Window's user and think that
my economic well being is at stake if you punish them to aid others.
They must all compete for us consumers, just like all businesses do,
let them do just that. Bob Tull
Robert E. Tull
214 Hollow Road
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092 , USA
email: [email protected]
MTC-00008778
From: Wynne Garlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:59pm
Subject: ... and justice for all
Since when is justice served by punishing the person/company who
can do it better? This ``lowering of the bar'' makes as much sense
as flying in an airplane let out to the lowest bidder. If all those
self-serving competitors of Microsoft want more business let them
invent it, develop it, prove it, manufacture it, and provide it to
the market. Right now, the multitude is so pleased with Microsoft's
efforts that they wait in line to buy and mark their calendars with
proposed release dates for the latest ``good stuff'' from Microsoft.
Get with the program!!!
--Wynne Garlow
[email protected]
MTC-00008779
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is marked for destruction. over the last 225 years our
government has progressively become more of a destroyer than a
protector of rights.
Whether the issue involves a whole industry, a single company,
or a single individual, the fundamental principle is the same.
Either people possess the right to their own life (which includes
the right to trade freely with other men) or, they do not.
Increasingly, the government's answer has been that they do not.
The Justice Department's apologists claim that the assault on
Microsoft (and on hundreds of other companies now facing antitrust
suits) is necessary to encourage innovation. But how can achievement
in any field be fostered by attacking and penalizing the achievers?
Would anyone accept the principles behind the antitrust laws as the
best rule for running one's own company? The principle that one
should fire or demote the most successful workers in order to make
room for the undistinguished ones?
Would anyone want this to be the standard used by his employer
when it comes to judging his own work?
Most people would respond to such a plan with outrage. They
would recognize it as a destructive injustice, as an assault on
ability and achievement. Because Microsoft has been more successful
than its competitors, prosecutors are seeking to impose special
restrictions on the production and marketing of its products.
Microsoft's competitors won't face these restrictions.
Microsoft must be FORCED (in the words of competitor Jim
Barksdale) to ``play by a different set of rules.'' It is likely
that these restrictions will be administered by a federal judge, who
will have the authority to block Bill Gates's future business
decisions if he decrees that they are ``anti-competitive.'' Finally,
many of Microsoft's competitors have argued that, because
Microsoft's Windows operating system is used by so many people, it
is an ``essential'' product and must be handed over to a separate,
government-regulated company that will administer it for the
``public good.'' In other words, because Microsoft has been too
successful, it must be hobbled, regulated, and... expropriated.
Is Microsoft a ``monopoly'' Not in the proper, derogatory,
traditional sense of the term.
Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or today's U.S Post Office
monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market share by having the
government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft earned its position in
the free-market. By being so efficient, Microsoft has earned a
dominant spot in the market, but this does not mean the company has
``monopoly power.'' Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its
competitors? This sloppy metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the
government has the legal power to twist (and even break) arms. The
only ``twisting'' Microsoft engaged in was the legitimate practice
of setting the terms of sale for its property. Today the world's
wealthiest man, Bill Gates was once an unknown college drop-out with
big talent, a big ego, and big ideas, but a fairly small bankroll:
the Geek David facing the Goliath IBM.
But in time, the capitol markets recognized the talent and
potential in Gates (in his ideas, his products, and his company).
The capital markets are a crucial means by which new entrants with
good ideas and products grow bigger. Creators like Gates are the
fountainheads of human achievement, but they can not and do not
create in a vacuum. Workers, suppliers and customers may not match
their talents, but they're important to their commercial success.
Has it been forgotten that Microsoft created the products that
made the market in question possible? Has it been forgotten that
Microsoft owns the goods it produces? The right to private property
means the right to hold it, to alter it, to exchange it, that is, to
control it. Is a firm guilty of controlling its own property? It is
under antitrust. To prosecute a firm for the right to its own
property is to obliterate the right to property as such. If laggards
like (disgruntled rival) Netscape truly had a superior, commercially
viable array of products, capital would have rushed to its door.
That capital did not is no fault of Microsoft and no sign of
coercion.
Capitalist competition, despite all the derisive descriptions
given it by critics (such as ``vicious/cut-throat''), is in fact
voluntary and peaceful.
Indeed, it entails a significant degree of cooperation and
coordination (among producers, suppliers -and- customers). This does
not mean self-sacrifice; capitalist competition is certainly
vigorous. It is no tea party; nor should it be. It's a competition
of wits and abilities, not a battle of fists or weapons.
By what stretch of the imagination does the Department of
Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's refusal to
license its products to vendors who do not accept its terms? This is
not coercion because:
If a vendor refuses Microsoft's offer and walks away (as he is
free to do), the vendor will be no worse off then if he did not deal
with Microsoft in the first place. Did Microsoft ``hurt''
competitors like Netscape by giving away a free Internet browser
with its Windows operating system (when Netscape wanted to charge
you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's bundles its meat patties
with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the bread makers. Such
actions may frustrate their competitors' wishes, but their rights
are left untouched.
Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the
application of the political principle of individual Rights-to-the-
Economic-Realm of production (and trade) that gives rise to the
rules of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated
the rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of
considerations, such as the ``public interest'', the antitrust laws
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property
and use it against Microsoft's interests.
Thanks to the antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily
classified a business as a ``monopoly'', the government is given
free rein to:
--PLUNDER of vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account
(through triple fines for so-called ``damages'');
--REPLACE Bill Gates with a government ``overseer'' who will
make the important strategic decisions at Microsoft;
--FORCE Microsoft to advertise and distribute its competitor's
products;
[[Page 25071]]
--COMPEL Microsoft to give up its ``trade secrets'' and
intellectual property to those who condemn it.
From start to finish, the entire antitrust process is no more
than a process of sacrificing and cannibalizing successful American
businesses (such as Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil) on the
guillotine of egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to
quote Alan Greenspan, who (upon a complete examination of the theory
and history of the antitrust laws) wrote: ``the effective purpose,
the hidden intent, -and- the actual practice of the antitrust laws
in the United States have led to the condemnation of the productive
and efficient members of our society BECAUSE they are productive and
efficient.''
KEY ISSUE
Key issue in Microsoft antitrust case is not ``consumer
welfare'' or ``innovation'' but individual rights. The growing
economy has been the result of the simple fact that until now, the
government has stayed out of the way of high tech. The creators
recognize that wealth is created, not seized.
Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? (the process of discovering a
better way to do things)? No private business can stop other
companies from innovating except by out-innovating them. Harm to
consumers has nothing to do with the purpose of antitrust. One of
the government's main complaints was that Microsoft was providing
free copies of its Internet browser. (Only someone working for the
government could conclude that free products are bad for consumers).
Antitrust case law is replete with examples of companies being
punished (not for any alleged harm) but simply for having the acumen
to remain successful in their industries. The antitrust laws are
intended only to punish ``power''. But since economic power is
earned on the free market, this means that the purpose of antitrust
is to punish successful business practices. Given this legal
context, Microsoft was doomed before it even set foot in the
courtroom. Applying the underlying anti-success principle of
antitrust, the ruling against Microsoft was... without finding ANY
harm at all!
The reason that Microsoft is an extremely successful company?
Gates is a unique combination of technological genius and
businessman, reminiscent of earlier American giants like Thomas
Edison. Thus, it was irrelevant how hard Microsoft's attorneys
worked, or how much intellectual vigor they brought to their legal
briefs and courtroom arguments.
These things were irrelevant because NO army of lawyers could
hide a single, essential fact (the only fact necessary for applying
the antitrust laws): Microsoft succeeds at what it does. The
punishment doled out for success is paralysis. Judge Jackson's
absurd conclusion? Microsoft must not be permitted to capitalize
upon its well-earned success. Because it has created values, it must
now... relinquish them. The Microsoft case is (at its heart) an
attempt to impose socialist central planning on the computer
industry. And worse, to do so in an anarchic, ad-hoc manner, one
federal court ruling at a time. Contrary to the statist theories of
the demand-side Keynesian economists (who are quoted daily by the
media), it is corporate investment that strengthens America (through
the creation of jobs and wealth), NOT spending by the government.
Production drives consumption, not vice versa.
Yet corporate America is derided as ``big business'' or ``the
wealthiest 1%'', (make that: the most productive 1%). And some
members of Congress would rather fund their ``entitlements'' on the
backs of the most productive group in our nation. It is immoral to
penalize corporations -and- the wealthy (the productive) with higher
taxes and then redistribute their property (which they earned and
others did not) to those who didn't create it just because ``the
wealthy' can afford it'' (and, therefore, are less equal inder the
law. Economic power is the power to create and produce. Political
power is the power to coerce and punish. Economic power entails
intellectual achievement. Political power entails physical
aggrandizement.
Economic power involves voluntary trade to mutual advantage,
trade with whomever you choose to deal and with whoever chooses to
deal with you. Unlike political power, which entails fear and
punishment, economic power means the offering of incentives and
rewards. Economic power is the power of a dollar (how many you earn
and how many you can spend determines the extent of your ``power'').
Political power involves involuntary subjugation to the state, which
has sole discretion over the use of force.
In a free society, government may ONLY use its power in
retaliation against those who initiate force or fraud.
Unless it seeks tyranny, no government may use such power to
itself initiate force or fraud against innocent parties. To the
extent it does, it acts as a robber or a gang. But far worse: a
robber or gang with no higher, legal authority above, controlling
it. Economic power is wholly innocent of any hint of the initiation
of force (or even of retaliatory force). Productive giants such as
Carnegie, Ford and Gates don't just have less power than politicians
or pose less danger than tyrants. They have NO political power at
all and present no danger whatsoever.
Political power, at root, is the power of a gun, of the police,
the military, the taxman, and the jailer. If you flout the law
(whether a just law or an anti-trust law) you must submit. But no
one ``must'' submit to a business proposition.
Not even from... Bill Gates.
Capitalism (the social system based on the principle of
individual rights), is not merely the `practical', but the only
moral system in history.
No politico-economic system has ever proved its value so
eloquently or has benefitted mankind so greatly. And none has ever
been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly. The flood of
misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright
falsehood is a terrible injustice. If they want to break Microsoft,
let THEM come in with the guns and do it themselves; let THEM figure
out how to do it.
The Microsoft antitrust suit is a case of politicians destroying
one of America's most successful companies just to satisfy the
demands of its rivals. What an obscene travesty! Microsoft, a
leading producer using voluntary cooperation is derided as a
coercive thug.
Meanwhile its puny rivals (puny because they couldn't sell their
inferior products) are permitted to wield actual coercive power,
with the full backing of the world's most powerful government,
worse, from that government's ``Justice'' Department.
N. White
MTC-00008781
From: Bob Lindinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
re. United States v. Microsoft Settlement
On November 6, 2001, the United States and Microsoft tentatively
agreed to the entry of a revised proposed Final Judgment to resolve
the United States' civil antitrust case against Microsoft. Per my
rights under the Tunney Act, I am writing to express my opinion that
the Microsoft antitrust case should be settled as quickly as
possible, rather than litigated further. I am very pleased with the
proposed settlement; it is tough, but reasonable and fair to all
parties involved.
I am a consumer that uses many Microsoft products, including
their Windows operating system. I have never felt ?harmed? by
Microsoft, on the contrary, I believe that their business practice
is based on a virtuous, positive feed-back, business cycle based on
very low price points leading to very high sales volume. This
business model ideally suits the consumer who benefits from low
prices.
Microsoft has always designed software for mass consumption.
Bill Gates realized early on, that if he could design software
suitable for a mass market, he could sell it at very low prices and
make profits based on large unit sales. Excess profits could be
reinvested in innovation and R&D to improve the software and make it
more attractive to consumers and businesses. Hence, the positive
feedback cycle.
That is why Windows has been such a huge success. Windows is
excellent software priced very reasonably. Each version becomes more
user-friendly and powerful, with new features to make it easier to
browse the Internet, work with digital photographs, digital music,
etc.
I believe there can be no monopoly in software. If Microsoft
fails to continually improve Windows, a competitor will eventually
emerge that offers a better operating system at a lower price.
Already we are seeing the emergence of an alternative operating
system offered for ``free'' by Linux. This is gaining wide
acceptance in some business circles and, if Microsoft were to stop
improving Windows, it would only be a matter of time before Linux or
some other alternative from Sun, IBM, Apple, Sony, Computer
Associates, SAP (the German software giant),or many other
competitors, would start taking market share from Microsoft.
I do not dispute that Microsoft, right now, has a ?monopoly? for
desktop personal
[[Page 25072]]
computer operating systems. However, Microsoft earned it by
constantly innovating and keeping prices low. Other competitors have
demonstrated that they can compete with Microsoft. Netscape was not
inhibited from developing its browser, that threatened Microsoft's
position. Sun Microsystems has developed its Java language and is
promoting it aggressively.
I believe the saying that high tech is a contact sport that
should only be played in the marketplace, not in the courts.
Microsoft's competitors are the one's pushing for further
litigation, not consumers or businesses that use Microsoft products.
The competitors would have us believe that no one can compete
with the mighty Microsoft. I guess they don't remember all those
prime-time TV commercials a few years ago for OS/2, that dandy
little operating system from a wee little start-up called
International Business Machines (IBM). But guess what? Nobody bought
OS/2, because it was expensive and not as good as Windows.
Lindows.com is preparing to launch early next year an operating
system that can run both Linux and Windows applications on a PC, or
run as a second operating system on a Windows machine. The point: to
offer an alternative to Windows, to eliminate the frustrations that
Lindows.com's CEO, Robertson, says accompany installation and use of
the Linux operating system, and to let Windows users run Linux
programs without having to jettison Windows. If that's not different
enough, he'll sell the Lindows operating system for just $99,
primarily in digital format, and with flexible licensing.
Clearly, Microsoft must continuously innovate to fend off
competition. Those labeling Microsoft a monopolist just do not
understand how quickly a ``monopoly'' can vanish in the world of
high technology. Our country would be served well if the antitrust
case against Microsoft is settled as quickly as possible. It will be
good for our high tech industry, and be in the best interest of
consumers'supposedly the intended beneficiaries of any antitrust
litigation.
Finally, on a personal note, I think Scott McNealy is the
biggest crybaby the business world has ever seen. I also think Larry
Ellison should get a life and stop worrying about his relative net
worth compared to that of Bill Gates. Neither of these high tech
CEOs have Bill Gate's vision for providing software to empower the
masses and they both are trying to use the courts to gain a
competitive advantage. In the words of our President, George W.
Bush, let's innovate, not litigate.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Lindinger
Schenectady, NY
CC:Halpy,Big Al,Anne,BamBam,Barry,Big Ed,Damian Thoma...
MTC-00008782
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. I agree with Microsoft and it's platform
users. If the system works and I bought it by choice over all of the
other platforms out there why is this settlement still up in the
air. I am entitled to buy the best I can find and it is in my power
to use or not to use all of the functions in this system. Settle
this and stop throwing my money at the lawyers.
John R. Cox
MTC-00008783
From: Patricia Duchene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think its time we moved on the settlement identified by the
Justice department is more than fair for the Federal Government and
the States. I resent a few states holding large companies hostage
because of their own interests and at the expense of the remaing
States and American people. Its your responsibility to see that a
minority group does not gain advantage at the expense of the
majority. Make them settle or walk away with what they really
deserve nothing.
Have a great day
P Duchene
MTC-00008784
From: Margaret Rosser Durso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
USDOJ:
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is very fair and I am
outraged that the 9 states are continuing legal action. This is a
wonderful company that has made a major contribution to this country
and to all consumers.
Please do all possible to settle with Microsoft as recently
proposed. This will be good for the economy, the stock market and
for all consumers...
Respectfully,
Margaret Durso
MTC-00008785
From: robert garner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It's time to settle this matter. Futher action is detrimental to
the economy and the consumer. An all out effort is needed to get the
economy growing again.
Thanks,
R.E. Garner
MTC-00008786
From: Uncle Dimi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I reside in San Diego and I primarily use my computer for
personal home use. I just wanted to send this e-mail to express my
opinion that it is time to let this suit against Microsoft come to
an end. If indeed this proceeding was begun on the behalf of
consumers like me, then consider this CA consumer satisfied. The
settlement may not be perfect, but assuming enforcement authorities
remain vigilant, I think it's worth taking the risk that Microsoft
will behave.
I recently purchased a new Dell laptop and couldn't help but
notice the preinstalled shortcuts on my desktop that directed me to
Dell associated programs and services. If Dell can do this, then why
is it wrong for Microsoft to incorporate programs and services in
their operating system? I'm an average consumer, but I understand
that whenever I enter a store or a desktop environment I will be
subjected to promotional displays and crossmarketing efforts.
Sometimes I may be seduced by these efforts, other times I will
ignore them and search for a more satisfactory product or service.
The choice is ultimately mine, and regardless of Microsoft's or
other tech companies' efforts to direct my choices, the internet
still provides unfettered access to an amazingly large and varied
``department store'' so to speak.
So, I'll wind it up by saying that if this settlement is
sufficient to keep Microsoft feeling like the spotlight is always on
them, which I think it is, then let's move on. Frankly, I'm getting
tired of hearing about this suit. In the overall scheme of things, I
may feel annoyed by some of Microsoft's activities and products, but
I definitely do not feel gouged or ripped off by them. When it comes
down to it, I most likely would not have adopted the use of a
computer years ago if Windows had not made it so easy by unifying or
monopolizing, if you will, the software world.
Do I want more choice? Probably. Do I want interoperability?
Most definitely yes. Do I think I will suddenly get these things by
continued efforts to deliver Microsoft's head on a platter. Not
really. So I respectfully request that you make this settlement work
and let's move on.
Thank you,
Dimitri C. Demopoulos
MTC-00008787
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
I have been a computer programmer for most of my adult life, and
I have seen many operating systems come and go; but I have never
seen an environment so restrictive for innovation and competition as
the one currently created my Microsoft. It is true that most of the
work that I do is based on Windows systems of one kind or another,
but it is equally true that most of my clients would benefit greatly
if other avenues were available to them on a non-restrictive basis.
Please notice that I do not say on a non-competetive basis.
Microsoft has managed to negotiate contracts with hardware
manufacturers and software developers alike which tend to suppress
competetive products--and in many cases more able and far less
expensive products.
I encourage you, as a part if this settlement, to not allow
Microsoft to strongarm developers so that their products are
preferentially available only to Windows users. If a developer has
good economic reasons to develop only for Windows, that is one
thing, but if the same developer refuses or is not allowed to
develop for other environments purely because of financial or public
relations threats from Microsoft, it is quite another thing ,
indeed.
Please pay attention to the evidence presented by the
prosecutors in this trial and
[[Page 25073]]
equitable and effective controls on the most clear monopoly of our
time.
Larry S. Cadle
MTC-00008788
From: Santos, Charles
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02 7:50 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft
Settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in
the software industry. Some serious shortcomings relate to:
1) Middleware
The current language in Section H.3 states ``Microsoft
Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating
with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of
general Web browsing)'' does nothing to limit the company's ability
to tie customers and restrict competition in non Web-based networked
services under .NET, as they fall ``outside the context of general
Web browsing''. Microsoft has already begun abusing its desktop
monopoly to tie customers int .NET revenue streams and set up a new
monopoly over the network.
Part 2 of the same section states ``that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable
technical requirement...'' essentially gives Microsoft a veto over
any competitor's product. They can simply claim it doesn't meet
their ``technical requirements.''
2) Interoperability
Under the definition of terms, ``'Communications Protocol' means
the set of rules for information exchange to accomplish predefined
tasks between a Windows Operating System Product on a client
computer and Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its
successors running on a server computer and connected via a local
area network or a wide area network.'' This definition explicitly
excludes the SMB/CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC
calls needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with
Windows 2000. Microsoft could claim these protocols are used by
Windows 2000 server for remote administration and as such would not
be required to be disclosed. The Samba team have written this up
explicitly here: http://linuxtoday.com/news--story.php3?ltsn=2001-
11-06-005-20-OP-MS> ``>http://linuxtoday.com/news--
story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-OP-MS
3) General veto on interoperability
In section J., the document specifically protects Microsoft from
having to ``document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)
portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement
criteria'' Since the .NET architecture being bundled into Windows
essentially builds ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing,
digital rights management, and authentication systems'' into all
levels of the operating system, ANY API, documentation, or
communication layer can fall into this category. This means that
Microsoft never has to disclose any API by claiming it's part of a
security or authorization system, giving them a complete veto over
ALL disclosure.
4) Veto against Open Source
Substantial amounts of the software that runs the Internet is
``Open Source'', which means it's developed on a non-commercial
basis by nonprofit groups and volunteers. Examples include Apache,
GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under section J.2.c., Microsoft does not need
to make ANY API available to groups that fail to meet ``reasonable,
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business.'' This explicitly gives
them a veto over sharing any information with open source
development projects as they are usually undertaken on a not-for-
profit basis (and therefore would not be considered authentic, or
viable businesses).
These concerns can be met in the following ways:
1) Middleware: Extend middleware interoperability with a
Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing
as well as other networked services such as are those being included
under .NET).
2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure of ALL protocols
between client and Microsoft server (including remote administration
calls)
3) General veto on interoperability: Require Microsoft to
disclose APIs relating to ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software
licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or authentication
systems'' to all.
4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid Microsoft from
discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API
disclosure.
Sincerely,
Charles Santos
MTC-00008789
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 7:53 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Get this class action out of the courts. Clinton is gone, why
carry on with this. Now we have to contend with all these terrorists
being tried in Federal Courts. Make way for them, Leave Bill Gates
alone. Get on with your life
MTC-00008790
From: craiggua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:02 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I read through the Revised Proposed Final Judgement and
Competitive Impact Statement.
In the the Revised Proposed Final Judgement, Section III
``Prohibited Conduct'' should thoroughly prohibit Microsoft from
engaging in these business practices. Also, the ``Compliance and
Enforcement Procedures'' which includes the Technical Committee,
should provide enough insight into Microsoft's compliance to the
final judgement.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgement also seems to provide a
reasonable balance. Consumers receive a widely used operating system
platform (i.e: Windows) that an OEM can freely include any number of
Microsoft and non-Microsoft applications. It will also allow
Microsoft to continue to provide consumers with an innovative
operating system and applications in the future.
I encourage you to accept the Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
Thank you,
Craig Guarraci
MTC-00008791
From: Doc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:13p m
Subject: It's called...
It is called capitalism. And in it's purest form there is a
demand, Microsoft meets it and in return: money, power, etc. I am
sorry for the competition being behind the curve to the point of
helplessness. So be it!
That is life. And many people experience that in far more
painful ways everyday. Now, attempting to somehow mangle Microsoft's
position via government ``intervention'' suggest we live in some
Orwellian home of the free, land of the brave. So in this beautiful
Republic (that we call Democratic) land of existence I leave the
following: It is so very pleasant to see the ``perceived'' economic
elite get porked and pissed (without so much as a...hug) by someone
of higher economic status than they! Uncle Sammy, please help poor
pitiful pampered me!! Ah, those beautiful sounds of children
playing; they only squeal when life, on those rare occasions,
doesn't go there way.
Take care (and don't forget to write),
Preston Alan Rouse
Citizen
MTC-00008792
From: Christie Sharpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:13 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion as a computer user that this settlement is a
good and necessary end to this case. Schools will benefit which is
never a bad thing. Please consider all the positives of bringing
this case to an end.
MTC-00008793
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:27 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
A just and viable settlement has been reached. Enough with this
supreme waste of resources litigating this matter. Expend the gov't
time and our money on real violations.
Brian Grimm
MTC-00008794
From: Don Conrard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:34 pm
[[Page 25074]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam or Sir
I would like to add my voice to those urging the court to accept
the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Federal goverment
in the anti-trust case. With the U.S. under attack by terrorists and
our economy in a downturn, a settlement would help to restore
confidence in the technology sector when it is needed most. I am
concerned that the continuation of this case and the uncertainty it
generates will have a very negative effect on any economic recovery.
It is time to end this case, which was largely brought by failed
competitors of Microsoft. It would be good for the country, good for
the economy, good for consumers and benefit the Seattle area. Don
Conrard 12021 N.E. 67th. St. Kirkland, WA 98033
MTC-00008795
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:37 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We support the Microsoft Settlement and want to just move on.
The Stewart Family
MTC-00008796
From: Cheryl A. Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:45 pm
In my opinion, this settlement is fair an equitable to all
parties involved.
Sincerely,
Cheryl A. Shapiro
MTC-00008797
From: Rachel LeVasseur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:47 pm
Subject: Microsoft
-- Rachel LeVasseur
-- [email protected]
The time is past due to settle the Microsoft case. This ongoing
case is not good for the economy, and we don't need the government
interfering with private business because a few private interest are
jealous!!!!
MTC-00008798
From: Jamie Rife
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 8:49 pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
The settlement is fair. It should not have dragged on this long.
To say one company has a monopoly in this highly technical world is
impossible.
MTC-00008799
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:03 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the Justice proposal regarding Microsoft is fair and
just. I encourage you to accept it as the final solution. R. M.
Butler, M.D.
MTC-00008800
From: William Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:08 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justices
As a Consumer I have been using Microsoft's systems for what
seems like forever and have never been forced into purchasing,
accepting or being stuck with anything that I did not want, there
were always alternative programs and systems available to me as a
free consumer if I so chose to do so. As a Small Business Owner and
user of Microsoft products and systems that have been made available
to me, I found these programs and systems to be less expensive and
more user friendly than other non Microsoft programs and systems. My
business relies heavily on the cost savings that the Microsoft
systems have afforded me and don't understand why Myself and
thousands of other small business owners should be penalized to
satisfy the desires of a Microsoft Competitor. I feel that it is
time to accept the terms set and get on with the job of building the
economy back to a point that produces jobs and revenue for the
country.
Thank You for Your Time
Bill Cook
Cook Consulting
MTC-00008801
From: Seth Alford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:24 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement insufficient
The proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft is insufficient. It
doesn't punish Microsoft for its past mis-deeds, and in some ways
allows them to extend their monopoly further, by allowing them to
give their software to poorer schools across the nation.
The proposal by the remaining 9 states who are opposed to the
DOJ settlement, written by Sullivan and Kuney of Williams & Connolly
LLP, Greene of the California's AG office, and Davis of the West
Virginia's AG office, addresses Microsoft's anti-trust violations
and offers appropriate remedies.
I read this proposal at http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/
ms-remedy--filing.pdf The Sullivan et al. proposed remedy should be
applied to Microsoft. That remedy will result in better competition
and benefit for consumers.
Sincerely,
Seth D. Alford
[email protected]
--Seth Alford
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008802
From: Raymond Vath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:30 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It has been four years since Microsoft's competitors (not
customers) began the attack on Microsoft. It is clear we customers
have benefited from the excellence of Microsoft's products and at
very low prices. If the competitors could come up with superior
products, we would beat a path to their door. The Department of
Justice has negotiated an agreement with Microsoft that should be
accepted. If others want to continue to harass the company, let them
do it in their own trial, with their own funds, not my tax money.
Raymond E. Vath, MD
MTC-00008803
From: Judy & Marko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:34 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
It is about time that the case against Microsoft be closed and
settled. Our economic recovery requires that innovative and
prosperous companies be allowed to function without unnecessary
litigation.
Sincerely,
Mark Monette
MTC-00008804
From: Diana Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:35 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We feel that subject settlement is fair and that should not be
further litigated.
Jack Burton
Granbury TX
Diana Burton
Granbury TX
MTC-00008805
From: C. gus St. John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:42 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is it concidence that the current downturn in the economy began
when the Clinton/Reno ``Justice'' Dept began the attack on
Microsoft? I have no particular love for Microsoft or Bill Gates,
but what is the alternative for Windows? Windows is a God-awful
kludge but the alternative, which is a managable kludge, is used on
only about five percent of the worlds computers. Apple is better but
the changeover would cost more than Bill Gates has.
Regards,
C. Gus St. John
6449 Elmer Hill Road
Rome, NY 13440
[email protected]
MTC-00008806
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:49 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
to the Dept of Justice; this will define my position on the
Microsoft settlement.
I believe that Microsoft is being unfairly punished for acting
in the best interest of the business, its shareholders and the
public. The accusations of monopolistic business practices have
largely come from it's competitors and those with business interests
who would best be served if Microsoft were much less sucessful, as
well as those whose political interests would be served by damaging
the corporation. There is also a segment of the US population who
are opposed to the capitalistic ethic and those who are very
sucessful. The very existence of Microsoft's operating system has
created the potential for our economy and the world to finally
benefit from the power of computing.
Prior to the Microsoft operating system and ancilliary software
related to it, there was NO compatibility among hardware, software,
peripheral equipment, and communication
[[Page 25075]]
systems. IBM, Unisys, NCR, le Machines Bull, RCA, ATT, ITT, and the
entire universe of others world-wide, demanded that their own
parochial architecture be maintained. By Microsoft creating this
``de facto'' standard the entire world information arena has been
opened to a universal ability to share, communicate, compute, and
manipulate information in a way that prior to this standard would
have been impossible.
I am astounded that the minds of this political system fail to
recognize the subterfuge planned by the anti-microsoft proponents to
return us to the neanderthal stoneage of incompatibility. The entire
computing user universe must have compatibility to continue to exist
in our current environment. To require Microsoft to provide
interfaceability standards to the user/competitor population is
reasonable. To force them to reveal corporate trade secrets is to
participate in criminal homicide of sucessful capitalism by
government. What's next, nationalization of our strongest,
healthiest corporate entities?
Microsoft is one of the only technology companies which has
survived the recent recession. It is because of the inherent value
of it's products and services. Please do not commit economic suicide
for all of us with unreasonable punishment for crimes not comitted,
but cast up by those in the market place who are unable to compete
sucessfully in that market.
Chip Reylek
421 Criswell Drive
Boiling Springs, PA 17007, USA
717.258.5378
MTC-00008807
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:51 pm
Subject: Microfsoft settlement
I am very much opposed to the government attempting to destroy a
wonderful company like Microsoft. It sees as though every time a
company manages to grow large on it's own, our government feels it
has a duty to destroy it. Take for instance the ``Bell System
Telephone Company.'' It was one of the most admired company on the
face of the earth, and then our government got in the act and ever
since it has become a disaster. There is a saying to which I
subscribe. ``I love my country, it's the government that I am afraid
of.'' Nothing could be more truthful.
I say ``LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE!''
Richard Morgan
Federal Way, Washington
MTC-00008809
From: sandra d shimkus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:00 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I as a concerned citizen would hope that the settlement between
the DOJ and Microsoft will finally be settled. Enough time and money
has been spent on this subject.
Thank You.
Stanley J. Shimkus
27031-59th. AV. NE.
Arlington, WA. 98223
[email protected]
MTC-00008810
From: Al Wedekind
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 9:54 pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Litigation of the subject has gone on long enough. In fact I
think it should never have started!
MTC-00008811
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:07 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Gentlemen, my wife and I believe that the proposed settlement if
fair and just to not only to Microsoft, but to this Country.
Microsoft has been a pillar of this economy over the past years, let
this company help us out now.
Marcia & Joseph Reisman,
Brooklyn, NY
MTC-00008812
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:10 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To the Department of Justice:
I am in full agreement that the proposed settlement between
Microsoft and the Dept. Of Justice and nine states be ratified and
settled. This litigation must be settled, so that both Microsoft and
consumers can go forward.
Theresa C. Gernhard
MTC-00008813
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:12 pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
We think the present settlement should not be further litigated
by the nine disgruntled states. If Ford puts a better generator in
its cars, General Motors has no right to call ``foul'' and go to
court. The reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling
should be the end of the line.
Joseph and Doris
Levine
MTC-00008814
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:19 pm
Subject: Please accept the settlement and let us move forward
Please accept the settlement and let us move forward with life!
MTC-00008815
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:21 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I say congratulations to the Court and to Microsoft for settling
this. I think free enterprise must continue.
[email protected]
MTC-00008816
From: Steven Gniazdowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:21 pm
Subject: Microsoft
Hello. My name is Steven Gniazdowski. I am a college student
majoring in Computer Systems Engineering. I have used, and will
continue to use Microsoft and non-Microsoft products.
Microsoft does put out a quality product. However, just due to
the fact that they happen to be the software giant they are does not
mean they are allowed to break anti-trust laws. Settling with
Microsoft is only surrendering.
Microsoft has committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law. I feel that the Department of Justice should
continue to prosecute Microsoft. Thank you for your time.
Steven Gniazdowski
MTC-00008817
From: bill conlen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:22 pm
DOJ,
I will be happy to see the MS antitrust case end with the
approval of the negotiated settlement. I think the settlement, if
enforced, will correct the abuses of MS. The case represents a drag
on the economy and on technological inovation. It is time to
conclude it.
Bill Conlen
Tacoma WA
MTC-00008818
From: Kenneth McGarvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If the certain far eastern countries computer industry had
succeeded in their attempts at setting the standard in not only
computer language/software and also the computers themselves, in the
mid 1980s, then the price we all would have to pay for computers and
the ancillary equipment would be much higher.
Also the effects on the U.S.A. balance of payments would have
been catastrophic. I am speaking with no particular interest to
pursue, in that I am a British subject and as such am speaking out
for what I believe is the benefit of most of the computer using
public. If the proposed break up of Microsoft goes ahead, it will
mean higher charges for all of us that use computers, it is only
because of the scale of the Microsoft operation that prices can be
held so low and that the company can offer what is genuine free
software.
Microsoft are not a monopoly and in fact there are many other
competing software companies in the market place all offering
varying products compatible to and some times superior to
Microsoft's. What few in the courts realize is in the mid 1980s
around six or seven of the far eastern electronic companies banded
together to try and formulate a standard system that as stated
above, would then have dominated the whole of the worlds computer
industry. If they had succeeded then IBM, Apple, Sun Systems, Java
and all the other great US and none Pacific Rim computer makers and
software houses would not be in existence today, or if they where
they would be mere fractions of the companies they are. So please
think on
[[Page 25076]]
these points when making your decision on the future of Microsoft. I
state once again that it is only by being good at what they do,
added to the scale of their enterprise, that enables Microsoft to
offer reasonable products at prices the general public can afford.
We would all be a lot less comfortable in technical terms if
Microsoft had not gained an early lead in computer technology. Again
I ask you to bear in mind the fact that Microsoft has earned
Billions of dollars for you country, do not kill the hen that has
laid the golden eggs for yourselves if you do you risk the threat of
all previous great civilizations.
Think of the Greeks, Romans and even ancient Egyptians do not
kill what is good not always right but am sure Microsoft does
attempt to get it right most times. So should your legislature and
rule for the keeping of Microsoft intact as it is. And long my it go
from strength to strength.
Ken McGarvey 04.01.02
My phone number 44 1642550833
MTC-00008819
From: Pat Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an American consumer, I would like to encourage all parties
involved to ACCEPT the proposed settlement between the DOJ, the 9
states, and Microsoft. The settlement seems to be a FAIR COMPROMISE,
and it is important for the country and the economy to get this case
behind us. Furthermore, I would encourage the judge in the case to
compel the non-settling states to join the agreed upon settlement as
well.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Fox
7808 79th Ave SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040
MTC-00008820
From: Avedis Garavanian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:25pm
Subject: Please settle and keep innovation ALIVE!
Please settle and keep innovation ALIVE!
MTC-00008821
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:31pm
Subject: (no subject)
I think that just because Microsoft is big and successful it has
become a target. This company has done more to develop the computer
industry than anyone else. Other companies, Sun Microsystems,
Oracle, Enron, Lucent, Apple, etc. etc. have been able to compete
and be successful too. Leave Microsoft alone and let it put money
into research and development, not lawyers pockets. Instead of being
jealous and resentful of Microsoft, try buying some stock in it. (I
did) I'm a little guy and this lawsuit would be hurting me too. I
don't know all the details, but my vote is to please leave this
company alone. Enough is enough.
MTC-00008822
From: Bill Eckerich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As ordinary citizens, we feel the current settlement terms are
fair, just and send the right message to Microsoft.
Unfortunately, a few people and corporations , for various
reasons, are seeking to prolong the proceedings under the guise that
the settlement is not fair. We see their reasons much differently.
As for the various Attorneys General, we see only a political motive
designed toward re-election or a hunger for higher office.
As for the competitors, they found themselves unable to compete
and are trying to make up for their lack of ability in this way.
We are particularly chagrined over the stance taken by Senator
Hatch. Although he is taking this position to try to gain advantage
for one of his constituents, he should be mindful of the economic
loss created by the delay and costs for the total economy,as well as
the fairness.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
William and Joyce Eckerich
MTC-00008823
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone already! They have made concessions to the
cry babies both to their competitors and with the state legislators.
Let's grow up and stop crying sour grapes that Microsoft and Bill
Gates have produced better software than their peers and that the
consume wins. Were it not for Microsoft, this would be typed on an
old electric typewriter on onion skin paper and stuffed in an
envelope sent postage paid through the mail and probably given the
US Post office would never be delivered anyway thus stopping the
consumers, public, and voters by the way from expressing their
opinions under the first amendment, which by the way you can find
using Microsoft explorer the defamed browser. Thanks again Bill
(Gates not Clinton) for all the great work. Keep it up and keep the
US moving forward!
MTC-00008824
From: Bo Yates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is about time that this circus comes to an end. We now have
more urgent problems as a nation. Get it over with already!!!!!
MTC-00008825
From: Shirley Sidis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
Dear DOJ,
In regard to the Microsoft Litigation which has been going on
for almost four years, both my wife and I feel that its about time
that both sides settle this case and get on with our daily lives.
This case has really hurt the economy, for the sake of our country
and the economy it should be settled now.
Sincerely,
Sam and Shirley Sidis
MTC-00008826
From: Larry Putnam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I just want to let you know that I feel that it
is imperative that the action taken to settle the suit against
Microsoft be adhered to as has been put down by the District Court
of Appeals. This needs to come to a close so that Microsoft can get
back to the business of doing what they do best and the Justice
Department can spend its time on more important matters to our
country.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Putnam
Chattanooga, Tn 37412
MTC-00008827
From: Robert(u)Jann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer I am concerned that the remedy for the Microsoft
anti-trust case will be worse than any harm Microsoft may have
caused.
Specifically, I think we all had better phone service before the
break-up of AT&T. Now I am diluged with phone companies offering low
rates and then once I have changed carriers jacking up the price. I
preferred to have my phone service lumped into one seamless bundle,
because in the end it is more efficient than the mess we have right
now.
I am afraid the same thing will happen with the remedy for
Microsoft. I prefer a software package that includes features by one
software company because INTEGRATION is do important to software.
The more chefs there are the greater the probability for soup bugs
and finger pointing.
I think Microsoft is offering a valuable service to the public
by offering integrated software solutions.
SYs
Robert--Jann@msn
MTC-00008828
From: david milton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is good for everyone. lets get this over
so we can make the next big leap in tech and pull this country out
of this recession.
Thanks
David Milton,
5728 meadowhaven Dr,
Plano, TX 75093
MTC-00008829
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:00pm
Subject: (no subject)
As a private citizen, I would like to urge the DOJ to quit
working against private business and let free enterprise seek it's
own level.
Hal Dennis
MTC-00008830
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25077]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Morning,
Please consider dropping all further action against Microsoft.
The free market produced the computer revolution and the tremendous
gains to the standard of living of most Americans. Please do nothing
to interfere with the free working of the market. And especially
stay out of computers and software.
Thanks for your consideration,
Mike Spalding
MTC-00008831
From: Bob Boysen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Education Market Settlement
As a Microsoft Windows XP user and a Macintosh OS X user, and
although I enjoy running both operating systems, I think it is a
mistake to allow an anti-trust settlement against Microsoft Corp
with the result being additional free Windows based computers in our
nation's schools. This certainly is a slap in the face of Apple
Computer Co who has for years worked tirelessly with the schools to
provide educational equipment. If the one of the main concerns in
the suit against Microsoft was due to a ``perceived'' monopolistic
endeavor on their part, the solution, in my opinion, is not to
provide them with an even greater field of play for their product.
This would certainly stifle competition which I believe is the
Department's exact opposite position in this matter. If the schools
choose PCs with the Windows operating system-- so be it.
If they prefer Apple Computer's operating system--so be it. Let
the United States Government NOT be a party against open market
competition.
Thank you.
Bob Boysen
Las Vegas, Nevada
MTC-00008832
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I wish to express my opinion on the DOJ s trial and settlement.
The settlement reached by Microsoft and the DOJ appear to me to be
the best compromise to a case that has not hurt the consumer but has
hurt ``the completion''. For the nine States to continue to use the
Courts to extend the case beyond the limits prescribed by the
Appeals court is in my opinion a grave waste of the taxpayers hard
earned money. And a waste of the court's time and energy for the
private gains of the companies located in or adjacent to the States
not happy with the DoJ Settlement. Please do everything you can to
Stop the Litigation of Microsoft and allow them and America to get
on with innovations for the next generation of products that
revolutionize the USA and the World.
Wilson S Hamilton
Pres.
L and W SERVICES
ISSAQUAH, WA
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008833
From: Joel Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer professional and avid computer user it is obvious
to me that Microsoft has been a blessing for many years. The overall
quality and consistency of their products make my professional and
personal life much easier. The LAST thing in the world I need is
lot's of operating systems and web browsers and communications
protocols to have to investigate, learn and then choose between. It
is my opinion that Microsoft has become as important to the market
place as they have, in essence, because they make good products that
everyone is basically satisfied using.
The proposal to break Microsoft apart terrified me. What effects
would that have had on my business and my personal affairs? It was
frightening to consider!
The revised settlement is, in my opinion, still unwarranted but,
in the spirit of ``getting on'' with things I would support
executing the current settlement without further delay.
Joel E. Davis
PO Box 6118
Hillsborough, NJ 08844
MTC-00008834
From: Wilbur Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 11:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To: The US Department of Justice
I am writing to you today to express my opinions in regard to
the Microsoft debate in accordance with US law, i.e., the Tunney
Act, which requires a public comment period that expires on January
28, 2002. I fully support Microsoft and am anxious to see this
protracted three-year dispute between Microsoft and the US Federal
Government resolved once and for all. Despite the aggressive
lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's competitors, the US Federal
Government and nine states finally reached a comprehensive agreement
with Microsoft to address the reduced liability found in the US
Court of Appeals ruling. I support the settlement that was reached
on November 2, 2001, and sincerely hope that there will be no
further action taken against Microsoft at the Federal level.
This settlement is tough, but reasonable, equitable and fair to
all parties involved. It has been reached after extensive
negotiations, and it allows Microsoft to continue designing and
marketing its innovative software, while benefiting the technology
industry as a whole. Under this agreement, Microsoft must disclose
information about certain internal interfaces in Windows to
competing companies. Microsoft has pledged to carry out all
provisions of this agreement, and the government has created a
technical oversight committee to insure Microsoft compliance. While
I personally am strongly opposed to any company being legally forced
to disclose its company sensitive or proprietary information, I
firmly believe that consumers overwhelmingly agree that this
settlement is the best alternative for them, the industry and the
American economy, under the circumstances.
Unfortunately, a few ``special interests'' are attempting to use
this review period to derail the proposed settlement and prolong
this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The
last thing the American economy needs is more litigation that
benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. In
my opinion, If Microsoft's competitors had expended more time,
energy and financial resources in acquiring, nurturing and
maintaining a strong technical base of innovative skills, and less
on litigation, they wouldn't have had to resort to such costly legal
tactics in the first place. If they can't compete on their own
volition, then maybe they shouldn't be in the business!
In closing, I want to reiterate that I strongly believe that
this settlement, as opposed to more needless and costly litigation,
is in the best interest of, and will benefit, the consumers, the
industry and the American economy. Furthermore, I urge you to get on
with the process at hand by upholding this agreement, so that
Microsoft can prudently devote its invaluable resources to continued
innovation rather than further protracted litigation. I will
anxiously await your decision. I have the utmost confidence that you
will make the only decision that is in the best interest of everyone
concerned.
Sincerely,
Wilbur Goodwin (Retired)
Columbia, SC
TC-00008835
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:30am
Subject: court settlement
the settlement reducing the amount of liability in the court of
appeals ruling is reasonable to all parties involved including
Microsoft and the American economy. please stop special interests
from derailing this settlement. thank you for your attention,
Sincerely
Chloe Murdock
MTC-00008836
From: tom sheller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs: I am communicating to support the current proposed
settlement with Microsoft, I firmly believe that the evidence
supports the freedom of enterprise, and I firmly believe that no
good would come from any sanctions on the part of Microsoft the
concessions that they have agreed too are fair and beneficial to the
general populace. Please do not allow special interest groups to
degrade the just decision that has already been proposed by the
dept. of justice.
Thank you,
Tom Sheller
MTC-00008837
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:46am
[[Page 25078]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Done, mailed 1/5/02.
Dave Bosworth
MTC-00008838
From: mardi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mb (765)973-8376Let the settlement go forward so we all can move
on with our work and the fine minds can be creative instead of
wasting time on this matter.
MTC-00008839
From: Thayne Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:03am
Subject: For Microsoft
I posted this in the Apple Discussion forum after another user
post a link to this e-mail address urging everyone to write you
against Microsoft: I think the one Jaun posted was a waste of time.
How is hurting MS going to help me? I'm against this whole going
after MS on principle. It's just wrong. Who's next? Apple? Sun? Last
time I checked Sun OS only runs on Sun hardware, sure they put
Netscape on it but who cares? What have they done that is so
wrong???? Bundle their software on their OS? Big deal. I never
wanted Netscape anyway and if I did I could easily download and
install it.
Let it be decided by the consumer. If you don't like it don't
buy it. We're proof they don't have a monopoly on the market, aren't
we? This is no place for the government, they need to be concerned
about protecting us from criminals and terrorists, not Bill Gates!!!
Thayne Erickson
Mac User
MTC-00008840
From: modulan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please close this case as fast as possible since: There are
zillions of real problems confronting our country which demand
better use of taxpayer bucks-- and believe me I am paying a bunch--
hopefully not squandered on a showcase for high profile lawyers.
Regarding legal rationale, I excerpt from the published text:
Precedent requires that: the balancing of competing social and
political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree
must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the
Attorney General. The court's role in protecting the public interest
is one of insuring that the government has not breached its duty to
the public in consenting to the decree. The court is required to
determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best
serve society, but whether the settlement is ``within the reaches of
the public interest.''
I think enough time has passed for the DOJ to conclude the case.
One would have to be an imbecile to believe that Microsoft's
competitors haven't pushed the case for their stockholders not the
public's benefit--the whole case is leaving a bad taste for the
fairness of the American legal system. Quite simply, how much of the
Microsoft cash can I get by gambling with lawyers in court.
As for Microsoft's mistakes, the proposed settlement gives a lot
more than anyone would have envisioned would really arise based on
the original complaints.
Folks, the DOJ and its facilities should not be a set for this
expensive soap opera--for heaven's sake, someone--just someone just
pound down the gavel and stop the legal opera of the century.
On the humorous side, if you folks can't close it out, just send
the case to Judge Judy!
John D O'Meara Sr.
MTC-00008841
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has been found guilty of using illegal tactics to
maintain a monopoly. This is a very serious offense, especially when
put into the context of intentionally violating not its first, but
its second consent decree. Further evidence that they have not and
will not reform their behavior is the fact that they not once, but
twice presented fraudulent testimony in Federal Court.
The citizens of the US (and the world) deserve protection from
further illegal Microsoft activities. I do not believe the current
settlement is sufficient deterrence. I propose:
That Microsoft be REQUIRED to disseminate 95% of its current
cash reserves to its stock holders.
This reserve is estimated to be in excess of $20 Billion. There
are approximately 1 Billion shares, so this is $20/share. No
stockholder is harmed by this; it may, in fact, stimulate the
economy which would be useful at this time.
This will leave Microsoft with no debt and $1 Billion in cash
reserves. Certainly this is still a strong financial position for
any company. The effect with regard to Microsoft tactics will be to
reduce (but not eliminate) the ability of Microsoft to purchase (or
threaten to purchase) companies that are competing against it. This
Microsoft method has been well documented in the various journal and
newspapers in the technology field.
Thank you for your consideration.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008842
From: Frank Disparted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:48am
Subject: MS SETTLEMENT
Microsoft is a great company and should be left alone, so it can
direct its energies to making new and better products. I think the
issue with Microsoft is like shooting your self in the foot. This is
one company that has brought prosperity to our country. As a user of
MS products, they are great, work well, and are dependable. That's
more than I can say of our government.
MTC-00008843
From: Stephen Jacob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Greetings!
Please settle this now!
We, the people want to go on without more litigation, lawyers
fees and constraints!
Our economy has taken enough of a beating and Microsoft has been
a whipping post! Let's drop it and move on, please! Thanks for your
time and interest.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Stephen Jacob
email: [email protected]
MTC-00008844
From: Maya Opavska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department,
I'm a long-time computer user and a concerned citizen writing to
express my concern over the prolonged case against Microsoft. The
comprehensive agreement that the federal government and the nine
states reached with Microsoft is reasonable and fair to all parties
involved. This settlement is good for consumers, it's good for the
industry, and it's good for the American economy. Please add my
voice to the choir of people asking to finally put an end to this
matter in the interest of all of us!
Sincerely,
Maya Opavska ([email protected])
MTC-00008845
From: SAMUEL MEDRANO
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/5/02 2:12am
Persuant to the Tunney Act the following is my opinion as a
concerned member of the public in reference to United States vs.
Microsoft and its proposed settlement. This lawsuit should never
have seen the light of day nor given the attention it had received.
It's just consideration should have been as a public example of
nuisance lawsuits brought about by inefficient and unworthy, but
powerful economic interests as well as sanctimonious politicians
seeking greater political power.
Serious study of economics would have revealed that true
monopolies exist only where the intruments of political power are
used to insulate and protect an area of industry from the brutal and
fickle forces of a free market whose only sovereign is the consuming
public. A clear example of a true and lasting is the first class
delivery monopoly granted to the US Postal Service. (Mises and
Rothbard)
Microsoft holds a majority of the market share of operating
systems not by state edict but by that brutal and fickle sovereign's
choice know as the public. Politicians love speaking out against
business ``monoplies'' but never bring to the discussion the state's
monopolies or their personal monopoly in their respective office.
They see it as a sign of praise and ``a mandate'' whenever they
manage to gather more than a majority in election polls or public
opinion polls.
By including the Internet Explorer with new PCs Microsoft was
employing a legitimate business decision calculation by offering
more and more for its consumers. Microsoft is as eager to capture a
majority
[[Page 25079]]
marketshare for internet browers as its competitors. That is the
nature of the free market and the American way. May the fair winner
in this never ending struggle be praised. We the sovereign will
determine how long we will let this or that supplier will be a
majority marketshare winner.
It is unfortunate that our current political and legal system
has brought this justly favored company to the point that it has and
in the process interfered with the sovereign's task of making
rational economic calculations as to the company that serves us
better with the most desirable products and services.
While unnecessary it is better for the public's interest that
the current lawsuit be brought to a rapid settlement as has been
proposed rather than follow the ludicrous and unjust actions sought
by the competing and powerful politicoeconomic interests that seek
to so call protect us from ourselves or those that serve us by our
own encouragement.
Respectfully,
Samuel Medrano. MD
Bibliography:
Mises, Ludwig von--Human Action 1949
Rothbard, Murray N.--Man, Economy and the State
For more on economics in general the Ludwig von Mises
Institution is literally the best place on earth to begin and
maintain a serious study on the subject.
MTC-00008846
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time for big government--at the federal level or the state
level--to get out of the business of holding back the Microsoft
Corporation from providing competitive products at an attractive
pricing level.
Hence, I request the settlement under review be approved and all
legation of any sort be stopped.
William F Stevens
[email protected]
MTC-00008847
From: Joel Bramlitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I'd like to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft antitrust
lawsuit. I am a citizen who makes his living by supporting Microsoft
products. I was very alarmed when I first heard about this lawsuit,
because I feared it could possibly affect my livelihood. I have
followed it very closely, and was very relieved when I heard a
settlement had finally been reached. Now, I am concerned again. The
nine states that did not agree with the settlement are jeopardizing
the whole deal for what appear to be less than honorable reasons.
The way I understand it, the heart of the antitrust laws are
intended to protect the consumer. From what I've read and heard,
Microsoft's competitors seem to be the true beneficiaries of the
proposed ``alternate settlement''. Is it a coincidence that they are
mostly headquartered in the holdout states? I think not. To me this
clearly political maneuvering on the part of the aforementioned
competitors. They are angry at Microsoft, and instead of creating
superior products to compete in the marketplace, they want to
cripple Microsoft in the courts. The way I see it, if the nine other
states and especially the U.S. Government agree on a remedy, that's
what it should be. The holdout states obviously have agendas that
have nothing to do with what's best for the consumer.
I, along with everyone I talk to feel this has gone on long
enough. Our country is in a very different type of crisis right now.
One that vastly overshadows this particular case. I hope the court
will consider this, and put an end to the vengeful tactics of
Microsoft's competitors. We cannot continue to punish success, and
reward mediocrity.
Thank you for your time.
Joel Stephen Bramlitt
MTC-00008848
From: K Dyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
My government spent more money prosecuting Microsoft during the
Clinton presidency than it spent on anti-terror programs. It spent
more on prosecuting Microsoft than it spent equipping our military
to conduct a two theater operation. It spent more prosecuting
Microsoft than it did on increased research for an AIDS solution.
My counsel to you is simple: STOP IT! I'm mad at you and I vote.
And I'll vote against anyone who does not support and vote for an
immediate end and settlement to this foolishness.
Don't forget about me, it's my money that pays the bills and I'm
not going to forget about you.
William K. Dyer
[email protected]
MTC-00008849
From: John Preston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:23am
Subject: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS settlement
I feel that the government should settle in favor of Microsoft.
Actually I think the matter should have never come to court. All
this crap about the browser being packaged with the OS is nonsense.
I use Windows 98 on my home computer and have both Internet Explorer
and NetScape on the same computer.
I can choose to use either one. Its up to me. I have said this
before. Try to buy a new car from any car dealer with an engine or
other parts from a different dealer and see what you get. Its going
to be a big nothing that's what. Why? Because business is not done
that way. Try to buy a new car without an engine.
They will probably sell it to you but guess what? It will cost a
lot more money because of all the special handling that will be
required to get it to you.
This whole thing is just the result of some people who weren't
in the right place at the right time or didn't make the right
decision.
Throw it out of court. Stop wasting my tax dollars on it and
lets get on with life.
John Preston
MTC-00008850
From: Alan Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let this lawsuit go! Let the settlement stand. It is a tough
settlement, but fair, and Microsoft is already implementing parts of
it.
I, as a consumer and industry partner (software developer for a
3rd party), was very upset to see this lawsuit at all. Right from
the get-go it only seemed to help competitors not consumers.
Microsoft has continually improved their software and kept prices
fair. They have created an industry that I am proud to be a part of.
Leave Microsoft alone!
With this settlement Microsoft is already giving in to things
they would've never agreed to (and shouldn't), but they have agreed,
and are implementing it. And Microsoft's competitor's should be
happy about that.
But from now on they should compete in the MARKET PLACE not the
courts. And let the CONSUMER decide what is best. They are not so
stupid as this lawsuit has made them out to be... they can spot good
software when they see it.
Thank you.
Alan Feldman
753 Bellows Way, Apt.# 204
Newport News, VA 23602
757-833-3470
MTC-00008851
From: Leon van Schie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I1m sorry
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft1s
cards by making them an offer like this.
To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market
like education, but by giving them a punishment that1s appropriate.
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or
something in that order.
What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them)
here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means of business we
will reward you by allowing you to do more business and even kill
some competition on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out
there you are giving
[[Page 25080]]
companies like Apple Computer absolutely no chance what so ever to
sell their product in the education industry, hence they start to
monopolize that industry as well.
A concerned Dutch citizen.
With kind regards,
Leon van Schie.
Bervoetsbos 189
2134 PP Hoofddorp
The Netherlands
MTC-00008852
From: Jay Greenfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The states contesting the settlement are working at the behest
of AOL, Oracle and Sun. They want to constrain Microsoft not because
it will help the consumer but because it will help their bottom
lines.
Microsoft has not always been an engine of innovation. And its
business practices have been too aggressive. Nevertheless, today
Microsoft with its .NET initiative and the uses it is putting XML to
in the service of this initiative has become a real engine of
innovation driving Oracle towards XML, Sun into an embrace of web
services and making AOL uneasy. This is a good competitive
situation. Weakening Microsoft significantly would strengthen AOL.
AOL is not an engine of innovation. Imagine no Microsoft and just an
alliance between Sun, Oracle and AOL. One doesn't have to be a
genius to put together a website using Visual Basic and a Windows
2000 Server. Java programming and Oracle administration are much
more demanding and expensive.
We need a strong Microsoft to compete with the AOL/Oracle/Sun
alliance.
MTC-00008853
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets move on and financially rape some other evil corporation
with deep pockets. What shows the attackers of Microsoft for what
they are, despicable whoring thieves, when Microsoft said that they
would in essence, give up their code ( the original request) by
providing FREE software/computers to schools,it still was not
enough--nothing will ever be enough. Have some political balls, now
that that embarrassment--Reno is gone, and move and do something
important for once in a decade.
Yours truly,
Russell Kestler
MTC-00008854
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:09am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
THIS CASE NEEDS TO BE SETTLED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER LITIGATION. I
HAVE TALKED WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE
INDUVIDUAL THAT BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE CONTINUED. WE
BELIEVE THAT A SETTLEMENT WILL BE GOOD FOR THE CONSUMERS. I AM
INVOLVED IN COMPUTERS, I WANT TO SEE THIS CASE SETTLED ASAP. WE ARE
INVLOVED IN SOME VERY DIFFICULT TIMES AT THIS DATE AND WE DON'T NEED
TO FURTHER DESTROY OUR ECONOMY BY FURTHER CONTINUING THIS CASE.
I HOPE THAT SOMEONE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS E-MAIL.
LARRY L. BRITTAIN, CPA,CFP,CLU,ChFC,CCIM
MTC-00008855
From: Jeff Oberst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear U.S. Dept. of Justice,
I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft Corp. is fair for
customers of Microsoft, its competitors and the general public. I
believe this case has dragged on too long it should be promptly
brought to a close.
Sincerely,
Jeff Oberst
MTC-00008856
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 7:15am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I want to go on record as one who believes that settlement of
the Microsoft case is paramount to healing much of the economic
trevails that we face as a nation and indeed, the world. No more
litigation, please, to serve the selfish interests of competitors
and stifle innovation within the industry. This freedom is still
what makes America a great and shining beacon to the rest of the
world.
This entire trumped up charade should have never happened in the
first place. Now that we are back to reality with the current
administration, let us not belabor a moot point. Let us move forward
and support a thriving desire to innovate, putting people to work,
assisting the public interest in attaining useful tools for the tech
world that moves us forward. Let go of Microsoft and stop the
strangulation! Now!
MTC-00008857
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough money and time has been spent on this. The government
needs to conclude this case with the settlement agreed upon by both
parties. Further prolonging this case is not in the best interests
of the consumer. Finish it...
MTC-00008858
From: Bill Fulmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is fair and equitable for all
concerned.
MTC-00008859
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department,
Not all Americans regard Microsoft as an ``evil empire.'' Many
citizens appreciate the initiative, brilliance and hard work of Mr.
Gates and company. Further, they do not regard Microsoft as a
criminal enterprise, but rather as a heroic one. It is not my
intention to change your mind on the specific charges you have
leveled at Microsoft, although it would be great if you did
reconsider. Anti-trust law is notoriously vague and non-objective.
My intention is to ask you, please, as a citizen, voter and tax
payer to leave the case as is, and to not support any worse
sanctions against this company. Further, if there is any opportunity
to reduce current sanctions or proposed sanctions against Microsoft,
I urge you to take these opportunities. In essence, I believe
Microsoft has been punished enough. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment.
Sincerely,
Joseph McHugh
Malden, Massachusetts
MTC-00008860
From: John Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the proposed Microsoft settlement.
John Sweeney
Lansdale PA
MTC-00008861
From: FRED SIMMONS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:08am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
MICROSOFT HAS DONE MORE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY AND OUR
ECONOMY THAN ANY OTHER. THEY ARE AN INDUSTRY LEADER AND HAVE CREATED
MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE PEOPLE THAN MANY BEFORE THEM. IT AMAZES ME
THAT MY GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN ISSUE WITH MICROSOFT. WHO IS REALLY
BENEFITING FROM CONTINUED LITIGATION? MAYBE IT IS TIME FOR
INDIVIDUALS LIKE MYSELF TO BEGIN ASKING WHO AND WHY? I HAVE SENT
COMMUNICATIONS TO MY STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS. I WILL
EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS COME NEXT ELECTION DAY!
IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS LITIGATION. I REQUEST MY VOICE BE
COUNTED IN F AVOR OF SETTLEMENT. NOW!
REGARDS,
FRED SIMMONS
293 WILSON BUTTE ROAD
GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59405
MTC-00008862
From: E.L. Pietrowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:18am
Subject: Mircosoft Settlement
As the usual cry by the Clinton gang was ``s Time to move on''
that time has been reached in the Mircosoft case.
No one will become a winner if this settlement continues to drag
on and on. As I see the settlement before the court neither side is
really happy with the settlement. To me that indicates the
settlement is as fair as it will get. It is time to turn our efforts
to something constructive and stop wasting tax
[[Page 25081]]
payer money on something that does not have a right answer.
E.L. Pietrowski
MTC-00008863
From: Herb Cilley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:24am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear People,
since 1933 I have been in business, one way or another. I
believe Microsoft has developed the system of E-mail and should be
allowed to profit from it.... It is my hope that You will rule in
favor of them, for what it is worth. Drug companies and others
patent their discoveries or inventions, and profit from it for a
period of time. Thanks for reading this.
Herbert L. Cilley
60 Middle Road--#319-B
Dover, NH 03820-4146
[email protected]
(603) 749-5904
MTC-00008864
From: Brett McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement.
Brett McDonald
38602 Lancaster Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
Owner
BFM Software
MTC-00008865
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want to add my voice to the comments the Court may consider in
reviewing the proposed settlement between the Justice Department and
several of the State plaintiffs and Microsoft. First, it should be
clear that consumers have overwhelmingly selected Microsoft products
over others. It is disdainful of the public to assume that this
preference is not knowing or intended. Second, it should be equally
clear from the public whining that many of Microsoft's competitors
(and their are many, a testiment to the strong competitive
environment in this industry), that this litigation has been used as
a substitute for competition by the providers of less desirable
products (the many published interviews with Scott McNealy of Sun
Microsystems, for example, are a testiment to this, as is the
relative performance of the competotors in the stock market). Third,
it is transparent that the unreasonable and intransigent position
taken by the nonsettling parties, Connecticut Attorney General
Blumenthal being a prime example, as reported in the national press
in various out of court statements by Mr. Blumenthal and others, is
primarily motivated by politics, not economics or law. This case has
been used to bash the success and innovation of Microsoft (a fat
target because of its superiority) by those seeking a populist
platform for their political ambitions. I urge the Court not to
allow those whose motives have nothing to do with fair and open
competition to hold back American technological competitiveness in
the world market (note that when the shoe is on the other foot, as
in the case of opponent America Online, no interference with its own
instant messaging system is allowed).
The notion of natural monoploy due to superior insight and
innovation should not be frustrated by ``wannabees'' who are merely
jealous of Microsoft's success or by politicians playing the
fundraising and campaign rhetoritc games--Mr. Blumenthal can set
national antitrust policy if he is ever the Attorney General of the
United States (or President). This case has done its public service
in reaching a just and fair settlement which the Justice Department
and a significant portion of the complaining States have freely
negotiated for the benefit of the consuming public. It is time to
get on with the next generation of technology and leave this case
for the historical landmark it is. There can be no doubt that by the
time the trial court has finished with this matter the entire
context of the technology which it addresses will have changed
without regard to legal principles as is only natural, for, to quote
Abraham Lincoln, ``. . . we have added the fuel of interest to the
fire of genius.'' I urge the Court to sustain the settlement, as
proposed.
Steven A. Diaz,
3022 Fox Den Lane,
Oakton, VA 22124.
MTC-00008866
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think settlement still too hard on Microsoft! Government
should get off the backs of companies that get a lions share of the
market because they are good at what they do--go after the real law
breakers!
MTC-00008867
From: Delpha Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft
313 N Mississippi Street
Blue Grass, IA 52726-9731
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing you to express my feelings on the Microsoft
settlement issue. I believe the settlement that was reached with
Microsoft is thorough and sufficient. Please continue to support it.
I am a strong supporter of Microsoft, and I think that it has
done quite a bit to help our economy. I want this case to be settled
so that the people at the company may continue going on about their
business and inventing superior products that will continue to
improve the industry. My hope is that once this case is over the
benefits that Microsoft, its competitors, and consumers will see
will help improve our economy in these hard times. After all,
Microsoft has bent over backwards to accommodate the millions of
fans of Netscape, AOL, and other software-related companies,
including non-retaliatory agreements against software companies that
develop products that compete with Microsoft.
This settlement is a step in the right direction. Thank you for
settling with Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Delpha Wagner
MTC-00008868
From: Leslie Duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:52am
Subject: settlement
1414 Arlene Street,
Redlands ,CA92374.
January 5, 2002,
Dear Department of Justice, Senate, Congress and The States of
Our Union,
This letter confirms my total agreement to settle the lawsuits
against Microsoft. As a U.S Citizen and consumer who regularly
purchases numerous Microsoft products, I can attest that Microsoft
has dealt fairly with me by their pricing and business practices. I
have never been forced to purchase their products through any kind
of illegal business practices. As a result I find that any and all
accusations made against this company on my behalf as a consumer
very frivolous and false. Therefore I humbly request that the
Justice Department and the United States Senate, Congress and the
States of our union, proceed with all speed in the interest of our
economy and Constitution to settle any and all lawsuits that arise
from the alleged false accusations.
Sincerely,
Leslie A.I. Duncan
MTC-00008869
From: PHIL BASHAM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It is past time to end the pursuit of Microsoft. A settlement
must be reached quickly. This was a lawsuit that never should have
happened. Microsoft has served its customers well and in the process
has brought computer use technology to the present high state. I for
one have no inclination to use other products and find the software
offered by Microsoft to fit my needs exactly.
Thank you,
Phil Basham
9787 Cypress Point Cir
Lone Tree, CO 80124-3105
303 799-1074
303 799-0613 data
303 885-9809 cell
[email protected]
MTC-00008870
From: Bettyhu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We were so pleased when the first settlement was made. It is
hard to imagine how the States could have been hurt. It seems to us
they are just being greedy.
[[Page 25082]]
Our country needs Microsoft to be able to continue to improve
its products. Please reject the States suits.
MTC-00008871
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement was fair, and it's time to leave them
alone.My tax dollars can be spent on something better, like
investigating Janet Reno. She is a crook, and has got away with a
lot. She spent eight years covering up for Bill Clinton.I waited
eight years for justice and i don't see it yet.Do you ever plan on
looking into her obstruction of the truth.
Wayne
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008872
From: Dick H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
please recognize that it is everyone's best interest to get this
settled now. let's do it !!
MTC-00008873
From: Ralph Rebandt Sr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:29am
Subject: SETTLE QUICKLY
The longer it takes to settle this--it will continue to hurt the
economy. Microsoft is in the right.
Ralph Rebandt
MTC-00008874
From: Marion Behlert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wind up the Microsoft case! The lawyers are the only ones
winning. Get it finished! If Ashcroft has something to do w/it, I'm
sure it will be fair.
Marion Behlert
5926 Price Rd.
Milford, OH 45150
MTC-00008875
From: Jiri Bures
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned consumer and citizen I overwhelmingly agree that
a settlement in the Microsoft case is good and fair to all parties
involved including the industry and American economy.
From: George Bures, [email protected]
MTC-00008876
From: Jay Burch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the DOJ has not represented the interests of the
American consumer in the DOJ's pursuit of Microsoft. Therefore, any
agreement that Microsoft finds acceptable is fine with me. The
motivation of the DOJ is what needs to be questioned here; not the
practices of Microsoft.
Jay Burch
MTC-00008877
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sirs,
As a concerned citizen I stronly beleive this case has dragged
on long enough and should be settled immediately. The settlement
accepted by other States is just and fair and should be acceptable
to all! Time to stop messing around and move on!!!!
Leo and Joan LaChance
MTC-00008878
From: Charlotte Venner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
This is a good settlement. It is not in the public interest to
deay this any further. We need certainty in the marketplace. Also, I
believe tat technolgy has moved beyond the issues in the case. It
needs to be closed.
Thank you, Charlotte Venner
Charlotte M. Venner, Esq.
VENNERADR
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
One Sansome St., 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 733-7858
Fax: (415) 388-1036
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web Site: www.venneradr.com
MTC-00008879
From: Allen L Plitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs, Please put a quick end to this case. I think a lot of
people are sick and tired of hearing the competitors of Microsoft
dictate to our government what to do to hurt this corporation just
so they may more quickly gain more of the pie. If they cannot beat
Microsoft with a better product, then they should not be allowed to
beat Microsoft(period). How next will it be possible to get
subsidization from our government.
MTC-00008880
From: Dan Rohr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:26pm
Subject: Mirosoft Settlement
Hello Department of Justice,
It is my understanding that the DoJ is accepting public comment
on the case against Micro-Soft. I have, for years, been annoyed
about the injustice that MS has had to bear:
* They create products that have been used by the public and
government to attack them--people use Word to write documents used
in court to prosecute MS, people use MSs versions of email and
Internet Explorer to send messages promoting the destruction of MS;
Im sure you can think of more examples.
* They are largely instrumental in the proliferation of cheaper
and cheaper, yet more powerful home/business computers. And yet,
they are attacked for harming the public.
As the fictional Howard Roark pointed out in his defense, in Ayn
Rands The Fountain Head, long ago, someone discovered fire, and he
was probably burned at the steak by his contemporaries that
benefited from that very discovery. We havent come very far,
sacrificing great men for the satisfaction of the mob; or have we?
The corrupt Clinton administration devoted, and diverted, great
resources toward the torture and destruction of the popular boogie-
man, Bill Gates, while ignoring the paramount responsibility of
defending the country from violent attack. I have been encouraged by
the Bush administrations apparent change in course against MS. I
urge you to open the jaws and let them free. The Wests greatest
country, with its technology and her heroes that create it, have
enough enemies (foreign and internal) without the DoJ going after it
too.
Best regards,
Dan Rohr
2304 Gross Point Lane
Wildwood, MO 63011
MTC-00008881
From: Jim Engler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:27pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
I wanted to take a moment to tell you that as a 3 year employee
of Microsoft's Federal division and 24 year officer and tactical jet
pilot in the United States Navy, that I understand integrity very
well, and have seen Microsoft always act with integrity and always
go well beyond what's expected of a company always trying to do the
right thing for it's customers.
Please seriously consider ending this political abuse of
arguably one of the most important companies in the United States.
Microsoft can significantly help lead this country out of recession
if it's given the chance. Thank you! Jim
James Engler
Federal Defense Agencies Manager (DOD/USAF)
Wk: (980) 776-9809
Cell: (704) 277-5758
``You have not only the right to be an individual, you have an
obligation to be one''--Eleanor Roosevelt
CC:Jim Engler
MTC-00008882
From: Lawrence MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Litagation
It is time to settle this case on a federal & statewide
basis.The proposed settlement seems fair & should be implemented.
The nation has more important things to do than to continue this
contentious litigation.
Lawrence E. MacDonald
Crossville,TN.
MTC-00008883
From: Jim Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am concerned about the lengthy court battles of the government
vs. Microsoft. I
[[Page 25083]]
believe it is in the best interest of the economy and the future of
technology that this be settled immediately.
Our economy is still very fragile and we need a boost. An
immediate settlement of the Microsoft case would be that boost.
Microsoft, as a company, has done more for technology in the last 15
years than any other company. Let's put the company back to work,
take this distraction away from them, and see what they can do for
us over the next 15 years. Thank you for your attention.
Jim Oliver
Colby, KS
MTC-00008884
From: William Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Many thanks for the fair Microsoft settlement. It is good to
have closure so that the country can go forward to solve the present
economic downturn without the distraction of the politics associated
with the Microsoft settlement. Hopefully the interests who wish to
keep this settlement open interminably will be tharwted and the
country move ahead economically.
Yours sincerely,
William B. Bennett
MTC-00008885
From: Don Rahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please complete this settlement as outlined in the present
proposal. I believe it is time to get on with business. It seems to
me that Microsoft is a vital part of our national economy and should
continue to add it's part to our national product totals. Let's wind
up the settlement and stop the sidetracking of Government resources
at Justice so they can concentrate on more important activities.
Sincerely,
Don Rahl
107 Blencowe Court
Folsom CA 95630
MTC-00008886
From: Mike Shreve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please proceed with the settlement of the Microsoft case.
Despite the hype, ALL software prices have decreased where Microsoft
products are offered.
As far as being a monopoly, Apple, Sun, and Oracle have
monopolies in their fields, AND charge higher prices.
Microsofts only real impropriety has been controling
manufacturer and distributor sales of their product. They've agreed
to stop doing that. END OF STORY.
Mike Shreve
727-539-6498
MTC-00008887
From: John H. Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I am writing in support of the Microsoft Settlement agreement
the Federal Government and nine states have endorsed. I believe this
settlement is in the public interest. It is time to put this
litigation to rest and move on. It is certainly important for
technology companies to have the freedom to inovate.
Thank you.
John H. Gardner
560 S. Belvedere Blvd.
Memphis, TN 38104
MTC-00008888
From: web blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:16pm
Subject: e-atm integer mint budget case 01245
the money is mine not microsoft the worlds and i have the
freedom of my business and govt to by the banking titles and
copyright title to do such the monetary decree and desision i want
is that it is mine for the first offer and the year 2002.
signed RICHARD JOHN FRANK AND I HAVE NOT POBOX AND NO ADDRESS
EXCEPT THE GENERAL DELIVERY OLYMPIA WA 98501 RESPOND IF NECESSARY
THANK YOU ..
MTC-00008889
From: sparky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Sir;
Please stop the ongoing litigation and bring closure for the
sake of our public and country.
I personally admire the direction of Microsoft and it's
innovations which enhances our growth in the technology and software
leadership. Our country needs to unite in these times to move ahead
and continue to show the world of our advancement to society as a
whole.
Sam Green
West Bloomfield, Mi
MTC-00008890
From: AANDJMARVAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I have always felt that I had the freedom to
choose whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted it, and, to a certain
extent, however I wanted it. I strongly believe that Microsoft is a
victim of it's own success. Some people, the majority of them being
Microsoft's competitor's, complain that Microsoft's success was a
result of foul play. That is totally untrue. Microsoft is a leader
in it's field because of a vision, hard work to implement the
vision, and innovation to remain a competitive force.
These are not acts of crime or foul play, these are acts of the
American dream. Let's not penalize successful, hard working people,
let us simply allow them to thrive. Government intervention, in
order to level the playing field, has almost always historically
resulted in hurting the people the government was trying to protect,
the consumer. Do we so quickly forget how Microsoft has contributed
to the explosion of the computer industry, and do we also forget how
many jobs they have created not only at Microsoft but also at a
plethora of other companies that started up as a result of their
success? This whole case is a big let down and a real slap in the
face to Microsoft and aspiring Americans who want to live out the
American dream to it's full potential. Don't forget, Microsoft isn't
just Bill Gates, it's a corporation with many employees and many
business owners in the form of shareholders. Please be very careful
and very wise in considering this settlement. People are being hurt
because this case is costing a great deal of money in tax revenue
and in company revenue. Who is really winning here if tax paying
consumers are dumping money into this case over many years? The
obvious answer is that no one is. All of us are losing money in one
form or another. Please resolve this matter as soon as possible so
everyone can get on with business and put this senseless debate
behind us. I appreciate your attention to my concerns.
Have a great new year.
Anthony F. Marvan
MTC-00008891
From: Kenneth Hopping
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:33pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement
The proposed settlement does not impose any substantive penalty
on Microsoft for its past monopolistic behavior. It also does not
implement any real corrective actions other than promises by
Microsoft to be less evil in the future. The entire package has the
appearance of a political buyout with DoJ becoming little more than
employees of Microsoft. I urge the rejection of this travesty of
justice. The public is in no way served by the anemic measures
proposed and in fact will be irreparably harmed by what is, in
effect, a government certification of Microsoft as a legal monopoly.
Kenneth Hopping
4117 145th Ave. NE
Bellevue, WA. 98007
MTC-00008892
From: Marvin Francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I believe that Microsoft has been harrassed enough. For the good
of the economy, please let the present settlement stand. Any further
litigation will only hurt the company and have an adverse effect on
the hopefully recovering economy.
Sincerely
Marvin H. Francis.
MTC-00008893
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
I believe it is about time that this case is finaly put to rest.
The public interest is being served with the appelate courts
decision.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerly,
John Intagliata
[[Page 25084]]
MTC-00008894
From: Jean Valleroy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do delay this settlement. Everyone has worked very hard
and diligently for a long time. There will never be a time when
everyone is content. The DOJ can use its time and energy more
effectively for other concerns of Americans. Get on with it!
MTC-00008895
From: Matthias Schonder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
Ladies and Gentlemen, some friends informed me, that you are
``listening to the voices of non-Microsoft users'' which makes me
very happy as it shows that you really care about users.
My friends showed me a sample of a good writting to you and I
think it is so good that I just copied and pasted it. This is not
because I'm lazy or something it is very close to my statement and
as my english is poor it think this is the best way.
But I also want you to know, that Microsoft ``one-OS-boot''-
license is one of the factors why Be, Inc. failed and is now
history.
Thank you very much for taking time reading this.
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: MS Office needs
to be opened, so that developers interested in porting it or
understanding the document formats can do so either in form of a
source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone
libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can read and
write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with Windows users.
The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
BeHappy
Matthias ``LoCal'' Schonder
BeDev#: E-18032
http://www.schonder.com/matthias.schonder
MTC-00008896
From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Here's another copy of a recent internal e-mail, Good OP
Monopolistic/Anti-Trust Violating Microsoft, sent out to it's people
urging them to, again, use whatever means they can think of to
``Crush'' the competition.
The U.S. Government has the ``Obligation'' to properly punish
this company because of it's court conviction on ``Anti-Trust''
violations. Don't let these people off! They've already driven many
companies with great products and ideas out of business. They've
already stolen many technologies invented by other companies,
changed them to be ``Proprietary'' to Microsoft, and marketed them
as their own ideas to further their economic/technological
stranglehold on the world.
Prosecute them, don't strike deals!
From: Brian Valentine
Sent: Wed 12/26/2001 7:14 PM
To: WW Sales, Marketing & Services Group
Subject: Me again--Linux updates
Microsoft Confidential--Do not print, copy or forward this email
and do not share this email with anyone outside the company. For
internal use only!
Now that the whole world knows we are taking Linux seriously
based on the leak of my last email... Wait--stop there -since when
did they think we weren't taking them serious?!? Did they think we
are not going to build the best products possible? Did they think we
were going to just be fat, dumb and happy and not continue to win
business? Did they think we were going to forget about taking care
of our customers??? NO!
Who do they think we are? We have the best d*mn sales force in
the world backed by the best engineers in the world--of course we
will take any non-Windows OS serious. The thing about the leak that
made me mad was not that we would legitimize Linux, etc. it's good
in some places, we are better, and it's not very good in other
places and we are much better, but they are a competitor and we will
compete. What made me mad was that my friends--some of you and some
of our customer's names where in that email and then available for
all to see on the web.
That made me mad. I want you selling and supporting our
products--not having to take random calls, emails, etc from the
press and others and I know what out customers share with us is in
confidence that we will keep it internal. I have no problem any
random Linux person sending me hate mail, junk mail, adding my email
address to every list server out there, you name it--that comes with
the job, but I don't want my friends to have to deal with the same
junk.
Ok, Ok, enough of that. On to some new things we are doing for
you around Linux. Linux is out there in some of your accounts and
you may not know it. The ground up nature of how Linux is introduced
into our accounts means that we need to modify our traditional
approaches of finding out about Linux in our customer base. We have
to be more hands on and dig deeper in your accounts!
Many Linux projects in CAS and Depth accounts happen below the
IT Manager/BDM level. It's crucial that you get out there with your
TSP/SE/MCS folks and do actual walkthroughs in your accounts. Ask
open ended questions; find out what they're evaluating for both key
projects as well as smaller, more tactical projects. Ask about the
`connector' pieces--you'll potentially find Linux in these areas.
This is a great way to not only find out about Linux, but also other
IT projects that may include Novell, Sun, Oracle, and other
competitors! If you are struggling with how to do this, then do the
simple exercise of walking through you accounts data centers and
when you see a Sun or IBM machine, ask what it's used for, if you
see some strange servers you don't what they are doing--ask what is
running on them and take notes. I would like to challenge each of
you to have these conversations with your customer as soon as you
can. Oh--and you can bet anyplace IBM is talking to your accounts,
they are saying Linux and switching to higher end non-pc systems.
With the current economic times we are living in, just about every
customer is looking into how they can get rid of those over-priced,
legacy Unix systems and ride the PC economics wave. We need to be
there when they are making these decisions and prove to them the
Windows platform is the best platform for them across any aspect of
their business. I want you to know just how seriously we're taking
Linux here in Redmond. We're investing major efforts in creating
easier processes and resources for you.
I. To start, we have expanded the in-field Linux Competitive
Champ program and renamed it ``Linux Insiders'' Like the other TSP
Champs programs, it has been changed to use the new TSP role-based
database and will be ready to roll out with its new name at the
Envision event in January. It is up to each regional TSP manager to
select or assign each member; therefore, anyone wishing to become an
Insider should see their manager to be signed up. Much like the
support ``communities'' that define the Linux experience, the FCS
team will strive to build a community to cooperate in winning
business against Linux. By building a virtual team of field staff
and corporate resources, we will enable the field to have one place
to go for communication and competitive information. The Linux
Insiders will have access to a centralized web site where personnel
can request help, route issues, and share best practices that the
entire field can leverage. This site, a restricted sub-set of the
http://infoweb/linux site, will be accessible by all ``Insiders,''
for items such as SLT reviews, web-casts, notes from conference
calls and other sensitive information. If you have questions about
the Insiders program, please email Kelly File of the FCS team at
mailto: kellyfi.
II. Second, I'd like to announce the new Linux/UNIX escalation
process that is being headed up by IMS Enterprise & Partner Group
VPJ Charles Stevens' organization. Here's how it works: a. First,
make sure you check out the latest additions to the Web sites:
http://infoweb/linux and http://infoweb/sundown.
b. If you can't find what you need there, involve your local
expert: the district Linux or Sun Insider (TSPs with Linux and/or
Sun competitive responsibilities). These Insiders have the expertise
and the resources to help you win. You can find your local Insider
on the web sites.
c. If you still need help for Global, Strategic and Major
accounts, the Linux/Sun Insiders (or your GM) can escalate the issue
to the new corporate Linux/Unix Escalation Team. Let me emphasize
that you need to work with your local Insider or your GM because
they have direct access to this escalation team. The team is
committed to provide an initial response within one working day.
These guys have in-depth UNIX industry backgrounds and have been
winning against UNIX and
[[Page 25085]]
Linux. The product development organization will be working closely
with this team to make sure you have all the resources you need.
III. Finally, we're working hard to debunk the myths around
Linux. We're approaching this in waves.
a. The first wave will attack the perception that Linux is free.
To that effect, we'll have an independent analysis commissioned by
DH Brown looking at a very popular topic these days--server
consolidation. If you're not seeing this yet, you probably will. IBM
is proposing to use Mainframes running many virtual instances of
Linux as a low cost server consolidation scenario for file and
print, messaging, and database activities. The DH Brown report will
be customer ready and will help your customer understand just how
competitive Microsoft is in this arena.
b. The second wave will be a full blown cost analysis comparison
case study between Linux and Windows in a variety of usage scenarios
(web, file and print, etc.) done independently by the analysts for
us. ETA for this tool is in May and it will be a great tool to help
you sell the value of Windows solutions over Linux. If you have any
questions on this study, please email the mailto: ??nxteam alias.
You can expect us to turn up the volume on winning against
Linux, as well as IBM. There is some great cross team work between
PMG, SMG, and CMG marketing groups to ensure we're addressing your
needs and believe me, that feedback goes directly to me and the
senior leadership team so we can build better products to help you
win against Linux!
Thanks,
Brian
Microsoft Confidential--Do not print, copy or forward this email
and do not share this email with anyone out side the company. For
internal use only!
PS: I used to run Exchange--so if you think I am not tracking
this message, think again. Don't forward it! And if you have forward
rules that have forwarded this message, then perhaps you should
think again about forwarding internal email with those rules. I want
to give you folks all the information I can in a very open way. If
we continue to have bad apples or careless people out there, I will
not be able to help you by sending this kind of information!
``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that
we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support
any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of
liberty.''
.... John Fitzgerald Kennedy--1/20/61
Dave Hill [email protected]>:-)
MTC-00008897
From: Bonnie L. Irwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:05pm
Subject: Opinion on Agreement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The Department of Justice and Microsoft recently reached an
agreement after a long battle over antitrust practices. This
agreement was equitable; both sides getting something each wanted. I
was relieved to see the final chapter of a case that had costs
millions of dollars and untold hours.
Now it appears Microsoft will have to share coding information
with its competitors, and allow companies to promote its
competitors' products unhindered. It is time to move on. We have
spent enough time and money on this case. Microsoft is a solid,
profitable, well-managed company, unlike some airline companies I
know. As a grateful long-time user of Microsoft products, I find it
ironic that those who seek to hinder innovation are often those
folks whose secretaries have to print out their email.
Why is it that Congress bails out ill-managed companies, but yet
goes after well-managed companies?
We need to let the terms of the settlement take hold and allow
our IT sector to move forward.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Irwin
Bonnie L. Irwin
IRWIN MANUFACTURING
266 Highway 128
Wilson, WI 54027
phone: (715) 772-3120
e-mail: [email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008898
From: cynthia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO whom it may concern, I sincerly hope the microsoft settlement
is final and we can get on with business.
Let innovation continue.
CYNTHIA THOMAS
ATLANTA GEORGIA
MTC-00008899
From: Curtis Rey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:16pm
Subject: Competitive Impact Statement
I am writing to your team to voice some concerns I have about
the proposed settlement in the Microsoft v D.O.J. case. I understand
that you have, more than likely, recieved countless communiques
regarding this issue. However, I feel compelled to write to you in
regards to possible, if not probable, negative outcomes of the
present state of the proposed settlement.
Mr. Cringley did an interesting analysis of the MS Settlement
that I thought of particular interest to the Open Source community,
and to the Department of Justice' team. But his opinions are not
pertainant to just the Open Source community, but also relate to
commercial and public interest regarding the competitive business
and market arena.
``The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically
protect companies in commerce--organizations in business for profit.
On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found guilty
of monopolistic activities against ``competing'' commercial software
vendors like Netscape, and other commercial vendors--computer
vendors like Compaq, for example . . .But Microsoft's greatest
single threat on the operating system front comes from Linux--a non-
commercial product--and it faces a growing threat on the
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. . .
.Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-
for-profits.
Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet
Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable,
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'' So much for SAMBA
and other Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls'' (as in
protocal and API calls). ``The settlement gives Microsoft the right
to effectively kill these products. Section III(D) takes this
disturbing trend even further. It deals with disclosure of
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft
``middleware.'' . . .. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify
commercial concerns only. ``
``The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information
Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-
profit. Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and
Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement.
It is as though they don't even exist.''
My concerns, and the conerns of many others are that ``..the
government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the
military, the National Institute of Standards and Technology--even
the Department of Justice itself--have no rights.''
To be specific. Such companies as Sun, Oracle, not to mention
IBM stand to loss greetly. I would like to remind the ATR-team that
IBM alone has invested over $1 billion in open source developments
and products. Granted it is not the function of the D.O.J. to secure
the profitability of private industry. However, correct me please if
I am mistaken, but the purpose of the case was to curtail the
illegitimate business practices of Microsoft and to afford a more
level and competitive environment for private industry and business.
Also, the cases underlaying function was to further provide an
equitable market place for the comsumer.
I fail to see how it is expected that Microsoft will ``meet
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, ...'' I
believe a independent standard should be the criteria under which
Microsoft may ``certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business [products and services].'' This is because, having been
found unanimously guilty of being a monopoly and all the aspects of
the aformentioned, it is incumbant upon Microsoft to continue, in
part or in whole, to conduct its' business as it did prior to any
ajudication of guilt, penality, or constraints.
Micosoft products, such as ``Office'', have become a quasi-
standard simply by its'
[[Page 25086]]
ubiquity in the market place. And furthermore, Microsofts ubiquity
in the market place has been deemed to have been established by
leveraging its' monopoly position in combination with unfair, and
now deemed by ``fact of law'', illegal business practices. Hence, if
such products and their underlaying technology (in the form of
source code, API's, protocols, etc..) has become the aformentioned
``quasi-standard'' does it not seem reasonable and prudent to
formalize said standard and allow governance of this standard to be
done by a consortium of independant agencies. And that the
underlaying technology involved in this standard be made open,
insofar as to afford competing business and developers (comercial or
research based) the opportunities to provide the consumers and
businesses relying on these product with greater choice, stablility,
``security'' and flexiblity of products to choose from and
impliment.
I strongly urge the ATR-team handling the Microsoft case and
settlement to redirect their efforts in refining the conditions,
stipulations, and mandates of the aggrement in order to provide a
more suitable framework for the use and development of informantion
technology and computing products and markets. I fear that in its'
present form the proposed settlement will only further entrench
Microsofts position in the market place. And it will lead to further
and costly litigation in the future.
Thank You.
Respectfully,
Curtis Rey R.N. B.S.N.
MTC-00008900
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern
I would like it known that I feel this issue should be settled
as soon as possible. I believe that it is hurting the economy
greatly and is a waste of tax payer dollars. Money that could be
used in many other places where it is greatly needed. This is and
has been one of the biggest scandals in the history of business. For
the good of all people in the United States of America please settle
this so Microsoft can get on with business. Business that helps our
Nation stay on top.
Sincerely,
Shirley J. Fabian
MTC-00008901
From: Thomas Grayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsolft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy.
Please send the special interest parties back to where they came
from, accept the settlement, and let Microsoft's competitors compete
in the marketplace instead of the courtroom.
Sincerely,
Tom Grayson
MTC-00008902
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2165 W George Washington Boulevard
Davenport, Iowa 52804
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have never agreed with the government's decision to sue
Microsoft, and that is why I support the government's decision to
settle this case. I am relieved to see this three- year- long
dispute resolved.
Microsoft needs to be allowed to go back to its own business
without having to worry about court costs, and strategies to keep
the products that they themselves invented. The company has already
agreed to share information and help other companies compete, and
this is more than enough to warrant the government ending
litigation. By settling we can now see positive effects on our
economy and technology industry. If other companies are concerned
about Microsoft obeying the settlement, a technical review committee
will make sure that Microsoft does.
Thank you for settling with Microsoft and allowing this company
to devote its resources to more productive activities instead of
litigation. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Patrick Gadient
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008903
From: Donald A McMahon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I believe the current settlement agreement between Microsoft and
the U.S. Justice Dept. is fair and just for the American consumer
and Microsoft Company. I believe one of the main objectives of the
U.S. Justice Dept. is to review policy of any company or persons
doing business in the United States with the purpose to protect the
American consumer against unfair trade or fraud. The current
settlement with its required set conditions for the Microsoft
Company meets the above objectives. Any revision as requested by
those States and/or Company not in agreement would send the balance
of the scale to one side, thus causing an unfair condition to the
American consumer.
Sincerely,
Donald A. McMahon
MTC-00008904
From: Merlin DuVall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/Ms,
This message is probably one that would be agreed with by the
majority of business owners world wide.
The user ability of a computer and software is all important in
the daily survival of small and large businesses.
The compatibility of the programs in MS Office is all important,
and is not duplicated elsewhere although they are getting better.
That is competition at it's best.
The problem of hackers and viruses today would be magnified
greatly is the windows information was made available for industry
use.
Although the legal process is primarily concerned with domestic
monopolies I would like to make the point that the world market is
getting smaller fast, and even the events September 11th illustrate
how we cannot help but look beyond the boundaries of the USA when
considering what the ramifications are decision made here.
Foreign computer hard ware and soft ware manufactures are going
to benefit most by any information that is made non proprietary by
the court decisions.
Keeping technology in this country should be the primary
concern. The settlement must take these points into consideration
and not just the complaints of computer companies in this country
that have put their ladders against the wrong wall as far as
illustrating that they cannot operate their businesses without
gaining ms proprietary information. Thank you in advance for
considering my opinion.
Merlin D. DuVall CEO
The MERLIN Process
MTC-00008905
From: Mike Ervin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In reguards to the settlement I am unsure if this is supposed to
be a letter of aggreement to the settlement or a forum to coplain
about the way microsoft has integrated its software. But from my
point of view I would like to air a complaint about the way
microsoft has integrated its mail client ``Outlook'' with its
instant messanger product. The Instant messager is launched
everytime I launch Outlook and I consider this to be a possible
security problem and a resource hog. I have written to microsoft and
they have informed me that thier is no way to seperate them.
Please let me know if other avenues are avaliable or if I have
done this properly, thank you
Mike Ervin
MTC-00008906
From: Eric Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Usually I take a passive approach, but recent MICROSOFT ACTIONS
ARE OUT OF ETHICAL LINES. I'm not sure if you've heard but MS is now
advertising that you better have MS licenses or face steep fines
and/or jail time. I'm not pro-SUN or pro-MS. I am for individuals
and business to be rewarded fairly for intellectual and business
properties, but I think all of these companies have scum
[[Page 25087]]
bag business practices. In fact because I work as a net admin in a
Cisco/Sun/MS shop and have been working on upgrades I've recently
had to deal with Sun no prime no vaseline fu$%-Ng. In the Sun case
the company went in search of needed upgrades. What MS is basically
doing is saying that they are going to come to your place of
business and force you to upgrade to their latest software
platforms. Of course MS are not directly saying that. Their taking
the moral stance of appointing themselves as the software Gestapo
who claims every company is using MS software illegally. The company
I currently work for is a software company and believes highly that
all software developed for business initiatives should be paid for.
If they didn't they wouldn't be in business. I've been working in
the technology field for over ten years with the last six directly
involved in information systems. I have worked for many companies
within that period of time and I have yet to work for one company
that did not make it top priority to have software licenses for all
software in use by the company. What MS is doing is wrong and even
though it is NOT in the publics best interest it is supported by our
government.
Should we allow one company to force their software on the
entire computing community? The government thinks so because they
have sponsored Microsoft's business practices, which have made it so
other companies can not compete with Microsoft desktop office and
Internet software, which in turn will make these forced Microsoft
upgrades policies possible. Maybe the government should allow every
company in the world to come to your home or place of business to
force you to show them receipts for every item that you have in your
possession. If you don't have a receipt for the item in your
possession than the manufacturing company can confiscate any and all
items and can willfully impose a fine unless you buy the companies
latest product. Looks like the government loves this idea...
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008907
From: Ty Vore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:19pm
Subject: I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting
the BeOS or equivalent back into the mar
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: MS Office needs
to be opened, so that developers interested in porting it or
understanding the document formats can do so either in form of a
source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone
libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can read and
write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with Windows users.
The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM
Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual- boot'' an
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
It has to carry a competitive impact statement, explaining how
MS damaged Be and the BeOS with its tactics. It should also say that
the current ``remedy'' the DOJ is suggesting is far too weak and
that it doesn't carry all areas.
I truely belive that competition in computer operating systems
is a good thing. Watching the number of computers contantly being
attacked by hackers makes me believe that more diversity means more
security.
Ty S. Vore
MTC-00008908
From: jim (sparky)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James E. Cliff Jr.
11808 Liming-Van Thompson Road
Hamersville, Ohio 45130
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
The settlement offered by the Department of Justice, and
accepted by Microsoft, to settle the antitrust case seems to be
about all that can be hoped for in today's political climate.
My personal preference would have been for the government to
stay out of the mix altogether. After three plus years and untold
millions it is time to end this case.
I have a great deal of trepidation anytime I see government
mixing in subjects that can only cause technological stagnation and
higher costs in the long term.
I am in support of the decision of the Department of Justice to
settle this case. Please, end this case now.
Sincerely,
James E. Cliff Jr.
MTC-00008909
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microscope Settlement
To the U.S.Gov't:
Please ``get off the back of Bill Gates''. Because of Bill Gates
and the ``Windows'' operating system, he has made available to the
common man and senior citizens in particular, the wonders of the
internet and computers in generals. He has provided many jobs for
many people and is blessing to America. That is what America is--
most anybody can succeed is they work hard and have a little sense.
Those who are complaining don't really care about the rest of
us--they only care that someone else is making more money than them
and are jealous they didn't create windows first.
Thank you.
MTC-00008910
From: Virginia Vietz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion a settlement between all parties would be in the
best interest of everyone, Microsoft, the DOJ and most of all the
consumers. Please don't drag this out any longer.
Virginia Vietz
4680 Wornath Rd.
Missoula, MT 59804
MTC-00008911
From: lcueroni(a)gate.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: As a computer user, and a concerned US citizen, I am
delighted that the Microsoft case is near settlement. In my opinion
a final settlement in favor of Microsoft is overdue. A favorable
settlement would allow Microsoft to return fully to the business of
developing more beneficial software and operating systems in the
computer industry, and would certainly have a positive and
stimulating effect on the US economy. I am fairly familiar with the
nearly four year litigation against Microsoft, and at no time have I
felt that there was a viable anti-trust case against them.
Discussions with my computer literate, and non computer literate
friends, overwhelmingly agree that a settlement is good for them,
the industry, and the US economy. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Respectfully,
Lee A. Cueroni,
Commander, USN (ret.) God Bless America.
CC:lee cueroni,[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008912
From: yergan john
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to express my opinion concerning the pending microsoft
case. The proposed settlement between microsoft and doj is more than
fair to consumers. The best thing for consumers is to let microsoft
move on, providing consumers worldwide with the kind of software it
has been producing for years.
Microsoft competitors need to compete on their own, not with the
aid of even more government intervention.
Microsoft is the best thing that has happened to the US economy
in the last quarter century. It is time for everyone to move on. The
already proposed remedies are more than sufficient. People like
Larry Ellison and Scott McNeely have no interest in fairness. All
they care about is winning. The state attorney generals who are not
accepting of the doj settlement are responding to biased interests.
John Yergan
MTC-00008913
From: Rodger Small
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25088]]
I believe that Microsoft is displaying monopolisticly in the
marketplace. The fact there is no alternative PC operating system
widely used is simple recognition of that behavior. Another
indication of monopolistic behavior is no price competition in the
marketplace. Win98se has been around $90 retail even with the advent
of two successive operating systems and one year later.
Microsoft has removed all competitors and has no need to be
price competitive. I feel a fine of $10 billion would not be
excessive. The fact that Microsoft has four times that much short
term cash available means something is lacking on the competitive
side of things, and also on the DOJ side of things watching the
marketplace too.
Microsoft makes good products, but they are too proud of their
products.
Thanks.
Rodger Small
MTC-00008914
From: Linda Mattox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a longtime user of Microsoft products, I am very disturbed by
the intransigence of special interests in resisting the proposed
settlement. The continued unwillingness of some to accept a
reasonable settlement is a drain on resources that could well be
spent on other matters. The seemingly endless churning of matters is
only good for the attorneys and the super-egos who can't seem to let
go. It is time to move on.
Linda Mattox
2591 Perkins Lane West
Seattle, WA 98199
(206)283-9216
MTC-00008915
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
In accordance with the recently passed Tunney Act, this e-mail
is a public comment on the Microsoft settlement. As an American
citizen, I believe that prolonging the litigation against the
Microsoft Corporation is not conducive to our country's economic
wellbeing. I would like to see a settlement reached quickly and
decisively. Such a speedy resolution is in the best interests of the
public. Thank you for your time and consideration of public opinion.
Sincerely,
Allison K. Rone
MTC-00008916
From: tupler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Enough is enough!
Get off the back of MSFT and get back protecting the country.
This whole suit was a pathetic attempt by the liberal, intrusive,
Clinton-ites to stifle business and free markets. MSFT is NOT a
monopoly, has NOT hurt consumers, and HAS wasted enough $$ (along
with the DOJ wasting enough of MY tax dollars). If you dont like
MSFT products, dont use them!! There really are other alternatives!!
MY DEMANDS AS A US CITIZEN AND TAX PAYER: PLEASE END THIS
NONSENSE NOW!!!
Regards,
Marc Tupler
Santa Fe, NM
MTC-00008917
From: Charles Karney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Charles Karney
702 Prospect Ave.
Princeton, NJ 08540-4037
E-mail: [email protected] (not for publication)
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: January 5, 2002
Re: Proposed Settlement in United States vs Microsoft
I have used computers professionally for the past 30 years.
Currently I am employed by Sarnoff Corporation, Princeton, NJ. In
this position, I have, for the past two years, coordinated the
research computing needs of a start-up company, Locus Discovery,
Inc. Locus Discovery uses novel computational techniques to design
small-molecule drugs, and at the core of this method is software
running on a 2000-processor computer cluster running the Linux
operating system.
Linux has provided a incredible opportunities to deploy massive
computing resources in an extremely cost-effective manner. This has
resulted in great opportunities for America's small companies to
realize innovative technologies.
In this context, I find that the proposed settlement in the
United Status vs Microsoft to be too narrowly drawn and to allow
Microsoft too many opportunities to interpret the settlement to its
advantage and to the detriment of the consumer.
The proposed settlement governs the market in desktop PCs
running the Windows operating system. In most companies, this
computing environment coexists with other platforms: Windows and
non-Windows servers, desktop systems running other operating
systems, handheld computing devices, etc. With the settlement of
this case, the U.S. has an opportunity to foster as wide a range of
choice as possible in all these areas of computing and to prevent
Microsoft from extending its illegally maintained monopoly. This
will allow U.S. companies choose the best tools for a particular job
enhancing the overall competitiveness of the U.S. economy.
I believe that there is a straightforward way for the U.S. to
ensure this while allowing Microsoft the continued ``freedom to
innovate'':
Microsoft should be required to publish technical specifications
for all its network protocols, all its data formats, and all its
application programming interfaces. The specifications should be
sufficiently detailed to allow others to offer competing
implementations and Microsoft should explicitly allow such
implementations, providing, if necessary, royalty-free licenses to
permit this.
Let me provide two examples:
(1) Microsoft should publish the specifications of the file
formats using by its ``Microsoft Office'' suite. This will enable
other office suites to read and write files in a compatible way.
These office suites will likely be available on non-Windows
platforms, and this will mean that consumer will not be forced to
purchase a Windows platform merely because of the need to read
documents produced by Microsoft Office. A consumer may still choose
to use Microsoft Office (because he perceives that it provides to
the best way to produce his documents) and he may choose to use
Windows because of his perception of its benefits. However, he will
now have a choice. This will be at no cost to Microsoft's
flexibility to create good software. On the contrary, it will offer
an incentive to Microsoft to improve the implementation of its
office suite since it will now need to compete against comparable
compatible products.
(2) Microsoft created a protocol called ``Server Message Block''
to permit files and printers to be shared between Windows systems.
There is a free implementation of this protocol called Samba which
allows the sharing to take place between Windows and non-Windows
platform. This offers a clear benefit to consumers. Unfortunately,
the Samba implementation is hampered by the need to ``reverse
engineer'' the details of the protocol. Microsoft should remove this
impediment by publishing the protocol and specifications of
additional protocols, e.g., for user authentication.
Some of the restrictions in the proposed settlement are overly
restrictive and should be removed. Two such examples are: (1) The
proposed settlement limits the provision of information to companies
which Microsoft considers to be bona fide businesses. This
restriction would exclude the ``Open Source'' community which is
responsible for Samba and Linux. Microsoft should make the
information available to all, e.g., by publishing it on a publicly
available web site, and the needed royalty-free licenses should
permit implementations by anyone.
(2) The proposed settlement also allows Microsoft to avoid
disclosure of information which would ``compromise security''.
Unfortunately, this provision is open to abuse by Microsoft. Good
security protocols can be (and are) published in full without
compromising their security. This provision creates a perverse
incentive to Microsoft to craft poor security protocols which rely
on ``security through obscurity'', a rightly derided mechanism for
computer security. By requiring the publication this information,
the U.S. would be stimulating innovation in the entire computer
industry. The situation would be similar to two other periods where
the establishment of computing standards lead to explosive growth:
the creation of the PC market by the publication of the hardware
standards for PCs, and the creation of the world wide web by the
publication of standards for HTML and the underlying networking
protocols.
[[Page 25089]]
I urge the U.S. to reject the proposed settlement and to create
one which will have a clear benefit to the consumer.
MTC-00008918
From: Anonymous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read through the settlement and agree. It seems fair
without being destructive to Microsoft and outlines fair business
practices and treatment of competetors, OEM's, etc. I would not have
agreed with splitting the company or forcing it to release it's
code, which would be unfairly advantageous to Microsoft's
competitors.
I also think the settlement will help Microsoft's products and
other software products to work better together, enabling computer
software technology to advance at a faster pace, which, of course,
is advantageous to consumers.
MTC-00008919
From: Repairman Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
The current Microsft settlement is inadequate punishment for a
company that leverage bute force and illegal tactics to gain control
of 95% of the computer market with an inferior product. The notion
that making microsoft give away computers does nothing to punish
them, it only allows them to market their products to an ever
younger and impressionable consumers. Such a settlement only rewards
this company and gives it free marketing rights inside schools.
I am part of a worldwide network of computer users that is
working on getting and alternative operating system into the market
place. Free competition is the backbone of the American way of life.
Having a choice of what I will purchase and what I will use is my
right as an american. By leveraging their market dominance against
hardware manufacturers and other computer software makers, Microsoft
controls the computer market. This much is known. There is no
question of Microsoft's guilt. Now that they have been found guilty,
they want to settle and get off with a slap on the wrist, even a
reward for their crimes.
Microsoft should pay for what they have done, and the damage
they have inflicted on computer users and companies that have
suffered as a result of microsofts crimes. The DOJ should FORCE
Microsoft to ``play flairly'' with other companies. A fair and just
ruling against microsoft should address the following issues:
*MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers and other
software makers interested in porting it or understanding the
document formats can do so either in form of a source code licence
or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone libraries'', so that
applications on non-Windows OSs can read and write MS Office formats
for flawless interaction with Windows users. The control MS has
exerted it akin to forcing everyone to use their brand of pen and
paper, and making it incompatable with ever other type of pen and
paper available. This puts our private information into a box that
can only be opened with a MS-brand key.
*The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that programs like WINE can be successfully ported to other
OS. Almost ever computer program written now can ony be run on MS
windows. Microsoft controls our data.
*The MS file system needs to be opened, so that users of
programs other than Windows can access their data.
*The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM
Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to allow the option of a
loading and/or booting an alternative operating system.
*This ruling must carry a competitive impact statement,
explaining how MS damaged Be Inc. and other companies with its
tactics. It should also say that the current ``remedy'' the DOJ is
suggesting is far too weak and that it doesn't carry all areas.
Only by addressing this issues will Microsoft be trully held
accountable for their actions.
Microsoft must be made to understand that they must run their
business in a manner consitsent with the laws of our country, and
that if they want to continue to do business here, they must respect
the right of consumers to NOT use MS products if they so choose.
Thank you for your time,
Nathan Babcook
St. Louis, MO
MTC-00008920
From: Tom Kirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement and Free Trade
I agree with the settlement reached to allow Microsoft the
'right of freedom to innovate' and not have their hands tied in
markets due to interest groups and government interference. It is
the right decision for an open and free market and for consumers
world wide.
On another note, I want to comment on the US government's
sanctions (through countervail and anti-dumping actions) on Canadian
softwood lumber industry. Rich interest groups in the US (with the
US government support) are trying to place ARTIFICIAL economic
barriers on Canadian softwood lumber entering the US. Lumber that is
required for the housing in the US. This practice raises the cost of
housing in the US and keeps Americans out of the housing market.
If the US truly believes in free and open markets (a comment
that Americans make all the time), then interest groups should not
be able to put barriers on products needed by the US. The US and
Canada are the largest traders in the world and the sanctions
imposed on the Canadian softwood industry is a slap in the face of a
country that supports the United States of America. In my mind, the
softwood lumber issue should be settled once and for all--a product
that is part of the free and open market between Canada and the US.
Tom Kirk
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008921
From: Pokey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion the Dept. of Justice case was a case where
Microsoft's competition and the greedy lawyers used the tort system
in an unwarranted attack on Microsoft. The only thing they
accomplished was to temporarily destroy the technology industry and
thus help precipitate the recession which this country is still in.
I believe the Justice Dept. case settlement was fair and that
the 9 states still proceeding against Microsoft are just more of the
same legal greed for money and fame, and that the sooner their case
is dropped, the sooner this country and the economy will benefit.
MTC-00008922
From: Pokey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion the Dept. of Justice case was a case where
Microsoft's competition and the greedy lawyers used the tort system
in an unwarranted attack on Microsoft. The only thing they
accomplished was to temporarily destroy the technology industry and
thus help precipitate the recession which this country is still in.
I believe the Justice Dept. case settlement was fair and that
the 9 states still proceeding against Microsoft are just more of the
same legal greed for money and fame, and that the sooner their case
is dropped, the sooner this country and the economy will benefit.
Marvin Weisbard
Tucson, AZ
MTC-00008923
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:14pm
Subject: Micrsoft suit
Please accept the government settlement and do not involve
anything further with the states.
Thank You
Roger E. Wehrs M.D.
MTC-00008924
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement is fair to all concerned and
should be ratified. The Tunney Act should be passed. The economy
does not need the government fighting one of our most successful
corporations. I urge you to settle with Microsoft, and let all
companies compete and continue the innovations which propelled our
economy for so long.
Thank you,
Rosemary Loven
Bishop, CA
MTC-00008925
From: Doug Singer
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/5/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25090]]
It is time to put this behind us, the citizens do not need
government prosecuting companies because a few competitors feel they
are unable to compete in the marketplace. Most of the states still
pushing for a court date are doing so because they have a vested
interest in one of the competitors of Microsoft. I as a consumer
feel Microsoft has offered to me the products I want and need, at a
competitive price. I would like to see my tax dollars at work
helping to rebuild the economy, not trying to tear down a strong
part of the economy. Enough is enough, please settle this now so we
can move on!
Douglas C. Singer, MBA CIC
Hall-Conway-Jackson,Inc.
Insurance Brokers
206-527-2444
MTC-00008926
From: Jim Bode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In regards to the proposed settlement, I am for it. Please do
not give in to Microsoft's competitors and end up drawing this
frivolous lawsuit out any longer. It is in the best interest of the
consumer and the United States of America in general for this
lawsuit to be settled.
Sincerely,
James J. Bode
MTC-00008927
From: Judy (038) Kevin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My husband and I wholeheartly support the settlement toward
Microsoft. Too many companies in our country have been derailed
because of deregulation. Microsoft is an inovative, agressive leader
in the world of cyber technology. Continue to let this company
blossum and create ways for all citizens to benefit from the headway
that is already in place. Do not take the wind from beneath its
sails!!!
MTC-00008928
From: Burd, Noreen (ING)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/5/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 7, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Subject:Microsoft Settlement
VIA EMAIL
Dear Attorney Hesse:
It is my understanding that the Department of Justice is now
accepting public comment on the Microsoft settlement. I write in
support of the proposal.
As our nation's economy continues to slow, many consumers are
out of work and businesses must do more with less. I am concerned
that if we continue to pursue the government's case against
Microsoft, further tying the hands of technology, we will make it
less and less attractive for investment in this industry. We cannot
afford to have this happen. We need to encourage investment in order
to spur an upturn in the economy.
I believe it is time for the government to stop spending
taxpayer's dollars on this case and allow both the judicial system
and Microsoft to get back to work on more pressing matters. During
this time of recession and national insecurity, the government's
efforts could be better spent prosecuting criminals that truly
endanger the American people and their economy rather than
Microsoft.
I am certain that the regulations put forth in the decision will
ease the government's concerns about a Microsoft monopoly and should
allow Microsoft' s competitors and consumers themselves some
additional benefits. However further regulations and/or restrictions
may result in inferior, expensive products and complicated internet
access.
Continued litigation against Microsoft at this time would be
unnecessary and ultimately harmful to the American people.
Sincerely,
Noreen Burd
39 Blackwater Road
Penacook, NH 03303
MTC-00008929
From: Wagner Investments
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please be advised that I agree with the proposed settlement. The
case has nothing to do with protecting the consumer, and is strictly
driven by competitors who can or could not compete. In the age of a
global economy the US need as many powerful and large companies as
possible. Look at the mess telecom is in due to the break up of
AT&T.
Ronald E Wagner
Barbara F. Wagner
MTC-00008930
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
My vote goes to settle the Microsoft case as proposed. Further
litigation is costly, time consuming, anti-big business, and does
not represent our democratic society.
Thank you.
Terry R. Glass
MTC-00008931
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For gosh sakes, get off Microsoft's back. Microsoft's
competitors are and have been trying to use antitrust to do what
they couldn't do in the market place. Maybe Microsoft does dominate
the operating system market. But how did they get there--by having
the best product. Does the government penalize free enterprise?
Looks that way.
Approve the settlement and let Microsoft get on with their
business.
Boyd Wilkes
13911 Aspen Cove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077-1521
MTC-00008932
From: Paul Tholfsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to see this suit settled as quickly as possible. I
don't understand the entire logic behind it. I have repeatedly read
that the purpose of anti-trust legislation is to protect the
consumer public. Yet all the objections to the settlement proposal
seem to be based on protecting the competitors of Microsoft, at the
expense of the consumer.
I've been a CPA for thirty years. During this time our firm has
gone through the entire range of business software, beginning with
Wordstar word processor, Visicalc spreadsheet, DBase-2 database, as
well as the CPM and Apple operating systems. We made a number of
costly migrations along the way, including Wordperfect, Lotus 123,
R-Base, and Harvard Graphics. Eventually, and for the past six
years, we have settled on all Microsoft software: Word, Excel,
Access, PowerPoint and Windows operating system.
The point is that we did this for three very good reasons, and
without any coercion:
1.. The MS products, while initially inferior to their
predecessor rivals, gradually improved and overcame them.
2.. As more and more of our clients and other people with whom
we do business apparently made the same choices, it became easier
and easier for us to share files, send e-mail, etc.. It's hard to
imagine how we made it in the days when there were at least half a
dozen different and incompatible word processors, spreadsheets and
databases available. In fact, the one relevant area which MS doesn't
dominate is accounting software. Here, we're still faced with having
to deal with over a dozen different packages, to the detriment of
our clients.
3.. The cost of the software is negligible when measured against
the utility and ability to improve our own efficiency.
Some of the demands I see being made by the plaintiffs and their
witnesses seem absurd. The compatibility benefits resulting from
Microsoft's dominance in office software is an obvious advantage to
all users. To return to the relative chaos of multiple operating
systems, and word processing and other office software in the hope
of creating what some university economists see as a theoretically
beneficial competitive environment, makes as much sense as requiring
each telephone company to use its own incompatible communication
system, or each railroad to select its own rail gauge.
This case should be settled as expeditiously as possible. If the
US and Microsoft have come to an agreeable settlement, the Court
should accept it and not prolong this case any further.
Paul Tholfsen
2626 South Park Drive
Bellingham, WA 98225-2524
360-734-9343
[email protected]
MTC-00008933
From: James Bach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25091]]
In my humble opinion, the settlement with Microsoft is fair and
equitible. Give it a rest, and let MS get back to supplying the
products that people want to buy and use!
Of course, I don't think the DOJ should have been picking-on
Microsoft in the first place it is just another example of the sore
loosers of the country (Netscape, Lotus, Oracle, etc.) whining and
complaining about not being able to compete and needing the
government to come-in an ``level the playing field'' like
affirmative action. Again, another case of someone having a dream,
working hard, making a product (or products) that people want to
buy/use, and then being punished because they were TOO successful.
Certainly a lesson (to NOT work hard for fear of being persecuted by
those who don't/can't) I do NOT want to teach my kids.
Did Microsoft strong-arm OEM suppliers to install his operating
system and web-browser on their newly-sold systems? Yes. Did he
FORCE them to do it? No. They DID have options and alternatives.
They could have offered other operating systems, or even NO
operating system. They could have charged a bit more per system to
sell it with JUST Windows and NOT Internet Explorer. There was
nothing that Microsoft did that prevented computer makers from
selling systems configured how they (or the buying public) wanted
them. There is nothing in Windows that prevents users from
installing other office suite or web-browsers. I've been using
Netscape for years and years. Netscape and IE both co-exist quite
nicely.
I've built my own systems from scratch, and I could (and did)
put ANY operating system, office suite, and/or browser on them that
I wanted. I chose Windows because it is easy to use, and ALL of the
software in the world (that I want to use) runs on Windows. I chose
Internet Explorer for web-browsing because of some of it's better
features/capabilities. I chose Netscape for e-mail because of some
of it's better features/capabilities (and because there are fewer
viruses and hacks against it), instead of MS Outlook. Yes, I use MS
Office (Word and Excel) at home, but I could have bought Lotus or
WordPerfect. I chose Office because that's what I use at work, and I
do NOT want to learn two different packages. But, that was MY
choice. Nobody put a gun against my head. I could have installed
LINUX or OS2, but then I'd only be able to run about 5% of software
I desire.
The computing world is better-off because of Microsoft,
precisely BECAUSE of the benefits that a centralized, core,
standards-based OpSys can provide. At work I'm forced to use a UNIX
workstation.
Unfortunately, UNIX is not UNIX is not UNIX; it is different
from platform (machine) to machine. In the UNIX workstation world
you are FORCED to use the UNIX (and the related ``Window Manager'')
that is shipped by the hardware maker. I have an HP machine, so I
have to use Hewlett Packards' (gag me with a fork!) version of UNIX
and ``Desktop Environment''. The software engineer who sits across
from me uses a Sun workstation, and has to use Solaris (luck him!).
Because there is no ``core'' or ``standards setting'' entity in the
UNIX world, UNIX applications suck when it comes to consistent look/
feel, modus opperandi, and data-exchange between applications. Copy
and Paste of formatted data??? What is THAT?? Doesn't exist on UNIX.
All you can copy/paste is raw ASCII text. Jeez, thanx. Because
Microsoft dictates how the Windows environment works, on ALL
platforms that run it, the vast majority of PC applications look/
feel/act/behave the same (or VERY similar). Because Microsoft
dictates how the Windows environment works, virtually ALL
applications can copy/paste formatted text and tabular or image data
back/forth between themselves. I hate the ``Tower of Babel'' that
exists in UNIXland so much (as do my fellow engineers in my company)
that we've been pushing our IT folks for years to throw-away UNIX in
favor of WindowsNT. Our dream is starting to come true.
Engineering management, who PAYS for the computers in our
department, finally told the IT folks to buy Windows2000 machines,
and to exchange our UNIX software licenses for NT licenses. UNIX has
been around longer than Microsoft, and UNIX IS more stable (crash-
proof) than Windows .-.-. however, because there is no centralized
core of ``standards setters'', it has never, and never will, become
as user-friendly and easy-to-use as Windows. I don't mind having to
reboot my system every once in a while if while I'm using it I'm
much more productive than the rock-solid, stable system!
James C. (Jim) Bach
Westfield, IN
Ham Radio: WY9F
MTC-00008934
From: Joyce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please DO NOT let a few special interest people create more
problems for Microsoft AND the American consumer. We DO NOT need
more litigation in this case. Let the settlement take affect as
stated. This country has enough economic problems. We do not need to
cater to special interest people who care only about themselves and
not America as a whole.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Joyce P. Johnson
5031 Regalo Dr.
Pensacols, FL 32526-1602
MTC-00008935
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone. They have a great product, great customer
support, and have done wrong. They are good business people, and
deserve whatever fortune they have gained.
[email protected]
MTC-00008936
From: The Dews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Dew
5564 Ribbon Rose Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32258
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Competition is the driving force behind a free market capitalist
society. Without competition the entire system is unworkable. I
believe that the antitrust lawsuit filed against Microsoft almost
seriously threatened to hinder competition within the information
technology market. I was relieved when a settlement was finally
reached in November.
The agreement drafted in November is quite positive. Some of the
beneficial terms in the settlement are; the settlement provides for
the increase in competition among software companies by prohibiting
Microsoft from entering into any agreements with third parties that
would restrict the third party to distributing exclusively Microsoft
software, the settlement further lends to an increase in competition
by requiring Microsoft to share interface capabilities with other
competitor software companies.
Clearly, this settlement promotes competition, and competition
is good. By not overly restricting Microsoft or the information
technology market, this settlement is going to be beneficial for the
economy. No changes need to be made. I urge you to keep the
settlement in its current form.
Sincerely,
Robert Dew
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008937
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle the case as now the court has ruled. Microsoft has been
subject to too much hassle from competitors and their
representatives.James P. Nieukirk.
Email at [email protected]
MTC-00008939
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Justice Dept.,
I want to encourage the government to settle the lawsuit with
Microsoft as soon as possible. Please except the Tunney agreement.
Thank You.
Dan Roloff
945 Hillandale Dr. E.
Port Orchard, WA 98366
[email protected]
MTC-00008940
From: PAUL KIRTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft case pending
Microsoft has done more good that harm. Ease up on them and
allow a great company to operate as they have agreed too.
Paul A. Kirton
Managing Director
Kirton & Associates
[[Page 25092]]
MTC-00008941
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First let me state that the trial which led to a requirement to
break Microsot into some number of companies to be an absolute
travesty of Justice. I do not see Microsoft to be amy more of a
monopoly then IBM was in the late 1960's and 1970's as regards to
mainframes. Were any actions ever taken against IBM? Whatever
happened to UNIVAC , XEROX, and a myriad of other mainframe
builders? I consider myself a data processing professional, and not
only do I agree with the proposed settlement, but I would be in
favosr of dropping all charges against Microsoft. If you believe
Microsoft is a monopoly how do you explain the successes of Apple OS
and LINUX.
Jules C. Domingue
MTC-00008942
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I know of nothing Microsoft has done wrong. Please just leave
them alone and get on with the next case. I hate your waste of our
tax money like this. How can our next innovator stand a chance in
such an atmosphere?
Len Rutledge
MTC-00008943
From: FlyingNuts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
I have watched the wonderful things Microsoft has done for our
Industry, our Government and our lives over the last 20 years. Were
it not for Microsoft's inovative products we would still be in the
dark ages in home and business computing.
The objective of any business is to beat their competitors.
However you overlook the merger of Netscape and AOL, and the merger
of Time Warner and AOL. You let the oil companies merge and
monopolyse our resources.
Stop the insanity and leave microsoft alone. You have cost the
Country ``billions'', and bankrupted the small investors in your
``take down of the microsoft and tech companies.''
It's time to set aside this case and let wounds heal. Let
Microsoft advance us into the new century!
Douglas Harper
MTC-00008944
From: JOY BROWN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
We feel the proposed settlement for Microsoft and the states is
as just as can be expected and would like to see it proceed to a
conclusion. To try to make the settlement tougher or prolong it more
would not be in the best interest of the economy or the consumers.
Sincerely,
Joy R. Brown
Lila M. Brown
1526 Thomas St. SW
Olympia, WA 98502
MTC-00008945
From: GEORGE PORZUC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5951 Price Road
Milford, Ohio 45150
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion and to thank you for settling
the Microsoft suit. It is a step in the right direction. I believe
that the settlement is more than adequate. It forces Microsoft to
share proprietary information that will allow other companies the
more easily implant their software on the Windows operating system.
The settlement will also create a technical oversight committee that
will ensure Microsoft behaves properly for the duration of the
settlement. The government should take no further action on this
matter.
This suit has had a very negative impact on the marketplace and
me personally. We are in midst of a recession--in my case a
depression. Now is the time to rebuild our economy by supporting
American businesses. We should reward those who contribute to our
economy. After all, our nation was built on principles of free
enterprise, and since I have been out of work since July. I want to
get back to being a contributing member of society.
Thank you for resolving this issue. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak on this matter.
Sincerely,
George A. Porzuc
MTC-00008946
From: Alan Simkatis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:06pm
Subject: Settlement
To whom it may concern,
My husband and I both feel strongly that this suit against
Microsoft has been going on long enough. It is not in the good of
the country for us to be hanging our own out to dry. It is time to
settle this suit, and see if we can't help ourselves to help our
economy, in the process. Please, settle now!
Sincerely,
Anne & Alan Simkatis
MTC-00008947
From: Joseph Wang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:24pm
Subject: Settlement for microsoft
Dear Person:
I do think it is for the everage amercian citizens interest to
settle the case with Microsoft inc. God bless American
Joseph Wang
MTC-00008948
From: Martin Caron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
1.. MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either
in form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with
Windows users.
2.. The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
3.. The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
4.. The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with
HAS to ``dual-boot'' an alternative operating system, in this
case BeOS, in order to remedy the damage MS has done to BeOS in the
past.
In other word, i want microsoft to have right only ``inside''
their software but allow all API, audi/video codec, file format
etc... to be public. They can keep the source to themself i don't
care (i don't want their buggy software anyway) but all programming
hook and protocol should be public and available under a NDA if it
pose security problems.
Martin Caron, hurted: shareholder, consumer, hobbyist,
programmer, student by Microsoft practice.
MTC-00008949
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:23pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I'm totally against any further legal action against Microsoft.
This action has been perpetrated by lawyers and liberals that want
to destroy our vibrant market economy.
This action will not benefit the consumer nor the economy. I
strongly urge the court to bring to a close this damaging and
wasteful fraud on our legal and economic systems.
MTC-00008950
From: Herb Himmelfarb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sirs,
Mrs. Himmelfarb and I believe the proposed settlement fails to
achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: halting the illegal
conduct of Microsoft, promoting competition in this industry, and
depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains. Perhaps we are just
whistling in the dark, what with there being a Republican, therefore
business oriented, administration in the White House. However, we do
believe that Justice should triumph over naked greed.
In a case of this magnitude, what is best for our country as a
whole should prevail over what has become convenient. It is our hope
that Justice will succeed.
[[Page 25093]]
Cynthia P. Himmelfarb
Herbert S. Himmelfarb
615 19th Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-2713
(503) 375-2934
[email protected]
MTC-00008951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I agree with the settlement.
Joyce Owens
MTC-00008952
From: kathy baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settelment
PLEASE END THIS CASE WITH THE SETTLEMENT IN FAVOR OF
MICROSOFT!!!
PLEASE!!!!
Thank You,
Kathy Baker
MTC-00008954
From: Jerry Kreps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:31pm
Subject: Respect for law will disappear
One outstanding result of this sham settlement will be that it
will legalize Microsoft's illegal behavior, which will lead common
citizens to conclude that the law is merely an inconvenience that
can be ignored, if not circumvented.
Even after the conviction was upheld in circuit court, the DOJ
seems bent on grasping defeat from the jaws of victory by agreeing
to this sham settlement.
Will Microsoft be punished for their previous crimes or the
crimes cited in this conviction? NO!
No punishment is proposed. Microsoft gets to keep their ill
gotten gain, while lessor criminals pay grievously in fines,
penalties and prison time. This is injustice defined! Apparently
wealth now puts one above the law. All it takes is enough cash to
buy high powered attorneys and grease politicians.
Will Microsoft be restrained from continuing their illegal
behavior? NO!
In fact, this sham settlement LEGITIMIZES Microsoft's anti--
competitive behavior toward the only segment of the software market
that has been even slightly successful competing against it, the
Open Source segment. The sham settlement give Microsoft the right to
determine, by its own definitions, what is a business and what it
not. No superior intelligence is required to realize what Microsoft
will do with that power. Why would the DOJ agree to such a
stipulation? The whole purpose of the litigation was to break the
monopolistic business practices and level the playing field for ALL
players. Now the DOJ is helping Microsoft to jack up Microsoft's end
of the field to unreachable heights, ensuring their illegal
dominance. It is as if the Feds began brewing beer to GIVE to Al
Capone's speak easyies, and destroy his competition, as punishment
for Capone's illegal manufacture and distribution of alcohol. Or, as
if the Feds not only gave the Mafia a free pass on extortion,
racketeering, prostitution, and the numbers, but gave a blind eye
and tacit approval to 'hits' on their competition.
Does the settlement contain any power of restraint or
enforcement? NO! Microsoft gets to pick one monitor and have a say
in the second. That effectively splits the monitors decision process
and renders them powerless to make critical support decisions. How
effective would the war in Afghanistan be if half of President's War
Council were Taliban? The 'teeth' merely extends the toothless
settlement two more years. Two more years of nothing is still
nothing. This one condition alone proves that the settlement is a
``FIX'', as sham.
The net result of the phoney settlement is that the American
Citizens will no longer support the law in jury rooms across the
country. Why should they convict lesser criminals when the bigger
ones walk free with DOJ HELP? They will see the DOJ not as helpers
of the helpless, but as aiding and abetting lawlessness. This
settlement. if upheld, will prove to the American people that the
DOJ is really DOJ Inc. and it reduce the American legal system to
the status of 3rd world kangaroo courts run by and for corporations
and politicians for their own greedy purposes. Recent political
payoffs, such as the DMCA, and court decisions which make
Microsoft's EULA a one-way document (they can sue the consumer, but
the consumer can sue them for breach of contract) have already
disgraced the judicial branch.
The forced resolution toward this sham settlement to aliviate
the grief and economic woes of the nation is laughable. Microsoft
has already pillaged our economy for billions and billions of
profits made possible only by illegal monopolistic behavior. This
settlement will merely put the country at the mercy of even more
outragious economic extortions. Even now Microsoft is proposing
unbelievable licensing fee structures that would be impossible if
the consumer had access to an alternate choice. But, since the OEM
agreements with Microsoft, along with their secret side agreements,
pevents the OEMs from even putting alternate operating system on
their PCs in dual boot mode, or even putting icons to other software
on their Windows desktops, other browsers, operating systems and
software have no easy access to public markets.
So, how does it feel to be a pawn? Maybe Watts will give you and
idea of what happens to a country when a citizenry looses respect
for the law because it offers no redress for grievances. Or even
worse, Argentina. The most favorable reason for supporting this
agreement would be if one held stocks, options and retirement funds
mainly in Microsoft. But then, this would be a conflict of interest
wouldn't it?
For your even suggesting such a despicable settlement I am not
so respectfully,
Jerry Kreps
521 West Garber Avenue
Lincoln, NE 68521
MTC-00008955
From: Daniel C King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daniel C. King
5531 Burnham Court
Fort Myers, Florida 33903
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
My name is Daniel King and the purpose of this letter is to
express my concern about the Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit. I
understand that a settlement on this case has been reached and that
public opinion is being taken into account in the final decision. I
hope to see this settlement reach a conclusion as three years of
legal action is quite adequate.
In this case, it seems difficult not to mention the AT&T issue.
Like AT&T, Microsoft is a very successful business and it is
disconcerting to see that these days, success is punished rather
than rewarded. I would like to see this case settled in a timely
fashion. Microsoft has agreed to respect the terms of the settlement
as well as fair competition and has even already taken action to
release a new version of Windows that will be more amenable to
working with other companies? software.
It is obvious that Microsoft is more than willing to abide by
the rules of fair competition and I believe that this settlement is
in the best interest of the public. I appreciate your interest in
the public opinion.
Sincerely,
Daniel King
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00008956
From: RFC-822=Derek--Stevens/Intalco/[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 7:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT CASE
DEAR SIRS:
WE ARE WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE MICROSOFT CORP. WE BELIEVE IT IS
HIGH TIME THIS THING GOT SETTLED AND PUT BEHIND US. WE THINK OUR
ECONOMY AND OUR COUNTRY HAS SUFFERED ENOUGH THROUGH THE LAST 3-4
YEARS, NOT TO MENTION THE PLAINTIFFS. WE THINK THE SETTLEMENT IS A
FAIR ONE FOR ALL INVOLVED, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
SINCERELY,
DEREK G. & LATRICIA J. STEVENS
MTC-00008957
From: William Upham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I believe the proposed settlement agreement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft is in best interest of both the
public and the high-tech industry.
This lawsuit has dragged on far too long and needs to be settled
soon before still further damage is caused to the U.S. economy and
consumers.
With the country now on a war footing, the last thing it needs
is the ongoing uncertainty
[[Page 25094]]
regarding the outcome of this lawsuit. It is in everyone's best
interest to settle this case and settle it soon.
Bill Upham
Americas Channel Communications
T/L 542-1205, (972) 280-1205
FAX: 542-1980, (972) 280-1980
[email protected]
MTC-00008958
From: John Renk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 7:50pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft alone and let the economy be on with it.
Microsoft never let
Leave Microsoft alone and let the economy be on with it.
Microsoft never let me down and gives me updates when I need them.
You will never get that from another software company.
The government went after Microsoft because they did not donate
enough to the Democratic Party.
[email protected]
MTC-00008959
From: Francesca Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
In a world where there is the AOL/Time-Warner monstrosity, it is
quite beyond me how someone like Microsoft could be considered to
practice unfair business practices. I have worked with Netscape on
my computer, and frankly, it takes over, worse than Explorer ever
did. My ex-husband downloaded AOL for his computer. Just AOL... And
got in the deal the automatic usage of Netscape. It took several
clicks of a mouse and a couple of deep searches just to turn off
Netscape. Frankly, it's quite easy to switch `off' Explorer. And,
Microsoft doesn't monopolize the `instant messaging' craze. It
disturbed me greatly when AOL purchased ICQ... And barely even
announced it to the world.
In this world, the United States... Microsoft is playing as fair
a ball as the AOL/Netscape/Sun group of companies that made the
attempt to gang up on the best programs on the planet.
Just my two cents
A concerned US Military Member
Francesca Ball
Misawa AB, Japan
MTC-00008960
From: Orlene McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please Please for the good of the country settle this dispute
once and forever This is the best company in the world and you are
trying to destroy it WHY? The economy started downward the minute
this happened it is so sad what has happened. They have created more
jobs and made the technical industry.
What are the younger generation thinking work hard and if you do
well the govt. gets involved and try's to destroy you. You should be
backing them in any way possible not trying to destroy them.
Live, Love, Laugh
MTC-00008961
From: Allan Corrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:01pm
Subject: d.o.j. settlement
TO THE D.O.J.
THE SETTLETMENT OF THE MICROSOFT CASE WITH THE DOJ NEEDS TO BE
FINALIZED . THOSE STATES THAT ARE KEEPING
THIS CASE OPEN ARE NOT ACTING FOR THE PEOPLES INTREST. I REQUEST
IT BE FINLIZED
ALLAN A. CORRIN REEDLEY CA.
MTC-00008962
From: Ken Dacey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair and in the best
interests of all parties involved. Taxpayer money should not be
spent in any further proceedings. Allow the remedies to set in and
the market and consumers will do the rest. It's time to stop
catering to Microsoft's competitors.
Thank you,
Ken Dacey
MTC-00008963
From: gope mirchandani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The very fact DOJ has setteled the case putting the necessary
and fair penallities,my views may appear superfluous.However
reiteration by general public should only convince the authorties
that any further changes will delay the settlement,adversely
affecting the sinking economy and interests of pubic at large.
In the free economy, local, state and fedral governments must do
what benifits the mijority.
gope mirchandani
MTC
-00008964
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the Microsoft litigation is O.K.,
albeit unneccesary in the first place. We urge approval; avoid
wasting resources on further litigation.
Doug & Jan Jonas
MTC-00008965
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DEAR SIRS:
I AM NOT A STOCKHOLDER OF MS I AM AN INMIGRANT-ENTERPRENEUR
PLEASE LEAVE MS ALONE AND LET THE MARKET RULE MAKE MONEY OUT OF
MICROSOFT THROUGH THEIR EVER-INCREASING PAYROLL TAX, OR PROFIT-
TAXES, NOT THROUGH BACKWARD UN-AMERICAN PENALTIES.
MARCELO BARREIRO
MTC-00008966
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the microsoft settlement and allow them to
continue with their good products and let the economy florish.
Microsoft is a great company and have done wonderful thing for the
technology industry.
MTC-00008967
From: Felicity Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is in the interest of the general public for
several reasons:
1. The whole dispute has been about political interference at
the behest of companies who needed to use politics when they failed
in the market place.
2. Much of this dispute is an effort to prevent Microsoft's best
product coming to market as competitors know the significance of
what is taking place and fear they cannot keep up.
3. The public is feeling the consequences of this maneuvering of
the market and is certainly not benefiting.
4. Microsoft has not used its supposed monopoly to hike prices
and has kept its products reasonably priced.
5. microsoft works with most companies to get their products
working well together , it is generally in Microsoft's interest to
have many products working well together as that inevitably means
more users total.
6. Microsoft has given access to education and information and
communications that would be out of reach of the vast majority of
the public worldwide. It may not have invented all the current
technology but it has brought it to market and given the public
access at a very reasonable price.
7. to have a multi layer system with different companies trying
to destroy competitors by preventing the intermixing of products
would cause confusion with less savvy computer users, a waste of
much money by people buying products that are quickly obsolete, or
do not work with some other products, so interrupting the flow of
information.
8. The economy is in no shape to continue with a dispute which
holds up the range of new products which depend on Microsoft's
operating system to be of use, the sale of which will help rev up
the economy.
9. The Microsoft products are aimed at making life easy for the
consumer. It is to the consumers benefit to have features added to
the operating system which are easy to access without `having' to go
out and seek other products. More experienced users have plenty of
scope for using other products on the operating system, and those
other companies are themselves vigorous competitors, some of whom
endeavor to cause difficulty in using Microsoft products
10. Microsoft products will obviously fit well together as they
are designed to, and this is good for the many consumers who are not
so computer savvy and able to seek other options.
11. Other products such as Real Networks music and video
products are easily
[[Page 25095]]
downloadable and work well for anyone who chooses to use that in
preference to Microsoft's products, In fact many sites including
Britain's BBC front page and news uses Real networks as its default
media and I have not been able to choose to use Microsoft's media to
view BBC videos, so much for choice for the consumer, I see no
objection raised to this and similar bias against Microsoft.
12. America generally has gained from Microsoft's vision. it
would behoove the economy to not interrupt that vision. it has not
seen much of a challenge from within the states and the last thing
you want is a foreign challenger taking the lead, as this economy
could then lose its world lead as others have in the past when they
became complacent or squabbled among themselves!
member of the public
felicity marsh
MTC-00008968
From: R.C.
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] @inetgw,attorney.gener...
Date: 1/5/02 8:36pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Monopoly
I have been using personal computers for 14 years and have seen
Microsoft outmaneuver its opponents in the marketplace. I have seen
the use of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt by Microsoft to excellent
advantage. The finding of the court in the settlement were common
knowledge 6/7 years ago and much commented on in the computer
magazines, at least until Microsoft got control.
I urge you all to hold firm against the bully from Redmond and
to pursue the monopoly until it is no more.
Thank you.
R.C. Johnston
7674 Rotherton Way
Sacramento CA 95823
MTC-00008969
From: Tom Salvador
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
I am not a legal authority. I cannot say what is and what is not
a monopoly. What I do know, however, is that Microsoft purchased the
legal rights to the ``wheel.'' This is not their fault.
A lot of businesses went along for the ride and profited. Some
businesses did not and they are the ones who believe Microsoft is
wrong.
The public of which I am a member, also profited. Because of
Microsoft, we could easily exchange data.
We did not have five different operating systems. We all spoke
the same language. As DOS was upgraded and later Windows, the
charges were minimal. Twenty dollars, thirty dollars at the most,
sometimes less. Windows a little more, but not out of the range of
the buyer. Did the competition want them to give out the upgrades at
no charge? Their products were certainly not free!
Did Microsoft violate any laws or did they practice tough
business procedures? I don't know.
Did they cross over the line and hurt the public. I don't think
so. It is my understanding that our system of justice is to protect
the citizens and not to help one business over the other.
MTC-00008970
From: Arlene Marie Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Tunny Act settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to
all parties involved.
A few special interests are attempting to use this review period
to derail the settlement and prolong this litigation even in the
midst of uncertain economic times. The last thing the American
economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy
competitors and stifles innovation.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
Stick with the settlement.
MTC-00008971
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
stop wasting time negotiating and start litigating!
MTC-00008972
From: Ralph Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After reading and reviewing the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft case, I feel that sufficient hearing have been held.
Those organizations that are pursuing further litigations are
greedy and have no just cause for purposed injuries.
I feel the comprehensive agreement reached by the Federal
Government and the nine States is fair and should be settled and
concluded on that bases.
Ralph and Estella Hahn
MTC-00008974
From: Del
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I would like to say it is time to stop flogging the dead horse.
End this disruption of free enterprise, don't continue to pacify
the whiners.
Enough is enough!
D. M. Townley
MTC-00008975
From: bleimeister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft
Enough is enough, as an American Tax Payer its high time to
settle with Microsoft ! Microsoft products have helped more
individual citizens, small businesses and developers of new
businesses than any other software company.
With Microsoft's ``User Friendly'' software [the best available]
countless millions of Americans enjoy and personally benefit from
the resources available from their computers and their corresponding
access to the internet.
Microsoft has brought a ``new world'' to a vast number of
Americans. We must allow them to continue to invent and bring new
beneficial products to market.
Our Country is now at war and we can no longer afford to seek
frivolous, politically induced, judicial remedies for manufacturers
of inferior products. Let the disgruntled competitors produce
something better--and let the market place [the everyday buyers and
users] make the ultimate decision as to which product will help them
the most.
Thank you,
W.C. Bleimeister
Hilton Head Island
South Carolina
MTC-00008976
From: Kyle Waters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement is too little too late. Please make
Mircosoft open up their proprietary formats for their office suits
and hold them responsible to past and current rulings by putting in
place observers who can comment directly to the public and the press
not just a federal judge or committee. It is us the citizens of this
country who brought the lawsuit against Microsoft through our state
governments. The observer should report to us.
Kyle Waters
Utah
MTC-00008977
From: Joseph Alcott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:43pm
Subject: govt protection?
This is always a way of generating political capital to finance
campaigns and to line legal pockets of legal lobbyists.
May your blessings be eternal.
Joseph (Senior) Alcott
MTC-00008978
From: Michael Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please end the litigation against Microsoft--the settlement that
has been agreed to is in the public interest.
Michael Graham, Ph.D.
235 Pinetree Lane
Richland, WA 99352
MTC-00008979
From: Willis S Lemmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:59pm
Subject: prolonged litigation
Prolonged litigation is a nice word for the lawyers involved. I
doubt that it will help any taxpayers who eventually pay their fees.
Microsoft is an innovator supplying US with benefits much too
valuable for chastisements by ``government employees''.
MTC-00008980
From: Robert Daniel Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:00pm
Subject: MS Settlement Issue--PLEASE resolve and settle as soon as
possible!
[[Page 25096]]
Greetings,
In accordance with the pending DOJ litigation matters under
review, please be advised that I wholeheartedly feel that it is in
the best interest of the general public, the US economy (including
the world economy as well), and private industry also that the US
DOJ expedite a swift and effective settlement of this current
litigation with Microsoft as soon as possible.
In fact, I feel that this lingering cloud that the DOJ has had
over this matter has had one very detrimental effect on our economy,
and should be resolved a.s.a.p.
Your consideration of this appeal is very appreciated.
Sincerely,
R. Daniel Smith,
[email protected]
MTC-00008981
From: Dennis Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:17pm
Subject: Judgement of Microsoft
I am writing this e-mail due to a sense of duty and alarm. I
feel it is my duty as an American and internet user to express my
grave concern that the DOJ has given up in a battle that was needed
to be fought to the maximum. I express my alarm that a company such
as Microsoft could be allowed to continue to operate a damaging
monopoly under the guise of ``just being competitive''. I will make
two points in this comment: 1. Microsoft is a monopoly in the most
damning sense. 2. They must be brought under control.
Microsoft has been in a position to place their internet browser
on every desk top computer sold with windows OS. No choice it's
there. They have also obviously required that if a Computer
manufacturer or reseller places Windows OS on the computer then no
other operating system can be on that computer at the time of sale.
I have no proof of this as in a copy of a contract but the DOJ
should if they have done their homework. This requirement would lead
to a breach of contract if broken and most small computer makers
would not have the resources or energy to fight MS.
Microsoft professes to embrace the XML open source protocol, and
yet they embed it in HTML so that only a Microsoft browser can
properly read it? Microsoft must be brought under control to allow
the internet, computing in general and the world to progress as it
should without being shackled by a proprietary system that only the
``corporate programmers'' are allowed access to and the privilege of
improvement. Their are other systems out there, UNIX, Linux, OS/2,
and MacIntosh systems that are just as good but don't even stand a
chance of competing if MS is allowed to continue with their
practices.
I am obviously not a lawyer nor in a computer related field, but
I am very concerned that the U.S. will not reign in the MS Monopoly
as has been done to other monopolies in the past. Please do not let
the slap on the wrist , that it appears Microsoft will get, stand.
Respectfully,
Dennis Myers
Citizen of the United States of America
MTC-00008982
From: Gerald Adcock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the interests of all concerned and the American economy this
lawsuit should be settled now. Special interest groups AND the
justice department have cost the American economy enough. Through
the years Microsoft has risen from a fledgling company to a dominant
force in our economy. This has been accomplished through good old
American free market competition and Microsoft has put out a product
that left the competition behind. To punish a company and long with
it the economy and small and large investors alike is un-American.
Jerry Adcock,
Orange Park, FL
Full Moon
MTC-00008983
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a former Seattle resident and admirer and mother of a former
Microsoft intern and mother in law of a Microsoft worker, I am very
concerned about the government involvement in a successful company.
If it is the competitors that are unhappy with the legal settlement,
why is this not finished with?
Competitors are always trying to get ahead of the game and are
envious of success. The government got involved in the telephone
company and look where they are now. Let Microsoft be innovative and
don't ``cramp their style''.
Julia Peterson
MTC-00008984
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern, I have reviewed the planned settlement
of the Microsoft case and find it reasonable and fair. I speak in
favor of continuing as planned.
Thank you.
Dr. Jack Cortese.
Corpus Christi, TX.
MTC-00008985
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:27pm
Subject: RE: MICROSOFT
LEAVE THEM ALONE. GET OUT OF THEIR WAY. THIS IS AMERICA'S
GREATEST COMPANY WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING TO IT'S BEST AND MOST
PRODUCTIVE? SENDING A MESSAGE THAT IF YOU GET TOO GOOD WE'LL PUNISH
YOU. IT'S ANTI-AMERICAN.
AGAIN LEAVE THIS COMPANY ALONE! AND FOR THAT MATTER--ALL
COMPANIES.
MTC-00008986
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not delay any more on settling this case. It is too
costly to the economy.
Thanks
MTC-00008987
From: Mike and Sandy Wenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I just wanted to express my satisfaction with the settlement
that the DOJ has worked out with the Microsoft Corporation. I think
the remedies are fair and do an equitable job of penalizing the
company without tilting the scale too much in favor of its
competitors. Frankly, I've been concerned that the DOJ has been
acting too much on the behalf of Microsoft competitors, who through
mistakes of their own, found themselves at a competitive
disadvantage, and not the American consumer. The settlement that has
been worked out has alleviated that concern. Now it's time to settle
this and let these companies get back to competing.
Sincerely yours,
Michael C. Wenberg
1160 Magnolia Dr.
Walla Walla, WA 99360
MTC-00008988
From: Eric A Nordin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:51pm
Subject: United States v Microsoft
The problem here is that a universal operating system is not
necessarily a bad thing. Government interference in the market place
is not necessarily a good thing either. It is not uncommon for the
heavy hand of governmental power to actually bring about an
undesirable outcome, though good was intended. If the Windows
operating system is so bad, then why does the government express no
confidence in the ability of the market place to spawn a remedy?
Linux is an alternative to Windows and enjoys growing acceptance as
well as ongoing development. The government also seems to ignore the
fact that personal computers can be set up to use multiple operating
systems. So what is the problem? The charge against Microsoft which
characterizes the integral nature of Internet Explorer as somehow
illegal completely fails to recognize an important fact; every time
a browser is launched a user chooses to click on an icon. My
computer has icons for three different internet browsers and I am
free to select whichever one I choose. To say Microsoft has a
monopoly because their browser cannot be removed is simply
ridiculous.
Another absurdity in these proceedings is that nowhere does the
government explore the benefits consumers reap from an integral
browser. This case is a total waste of taxpayer money and should be
dropped altogether. It is an embarrassment to our country to have
conducted this trial in the first place. Such a suit is yet another
hallmark of a truly misguided and ignorant administration. The
current administration would do well to get as much distance as
possible from the
[[Page 25097]]
prosecution of this case. It is not something to be bragged about or
pointed to as an example of responsible discharge of public duty.
Eric Nordin
17191 Langford Blvd.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952-447-2785
MTC-00008989
From: Nina Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I understand that the Department of Justice is receiving
comments from the public about the Microsoft settlement. I believe
that the settlement, though hard on Microsoft, is more than fair to
their opponents. Finally putting an end to this issue will be good
for consumers like myself who greatly benefit from the creative
design of Microsoft's products. I also believe it would be injurious
to our national economy if legal action were to resume against
Microsoft. Hopefully, this will not happen.
Sincerely,
Agatha N. Snyder
435 Crossbeam Circle E.
Casselberry, FL 32707
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
MTC-00008990
From: Dariusz Jarzynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Microsoft software user, and a citizen of this great
country, I support the US government and Microsoft efforts to settle
the current lawsuit to the benefit of the consumer. I strongly
support this settlement which allows the best and most innovative
corporations to continue to develop the best software programs as a
result of their creativity, their consumer-oriented research and
their willingness to contribute to develop a more efficient work
environment.
Darek Jarzynski
Issaquah, WA
MTC-00008991
From: Rick Girdner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
Please do whatever is necessary to end this Microsoft fiasco.
The time and energy could well be spent in other areas.
Thank you,
Rick Girdner
MTC-00008992
From: Charles Coon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:09am
Subject: An End to the Microsoft Case
It is time to end the seemingly never-ending legal actions
against Microsoft. The initial legal action by the Department of
Justice accelerated the technology downturn, eventually resulting in
our current recession. The settlement in place now is more than
adequate, and the economic recovery depends on a quick termination
of the unjustified continuing actions by some states.
Thanks,
Charles Coon
MTC-00008993
From: Susan Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't believe that anti-trust laws are constitutional. The
government should not be involved in economics. Please repeal the
Sherman Antitrust laws.
Susan Sheridan
MTC-00008994
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:21am
Subject: Please Allow Microsoft to Operate Without Penalties
Capitalist America is supposed to boost Capitalism, not destroy
it. Many of us profit when Microsoft profits. Employees, customers,
investors all benefit. This action should not have been taken to
advance the competitors who instigated it. Settle it now and let
Microsoft and its beneficiaries get on with their business.
Pat and Fred Carlson,
766 Calle Pecos,
Thousand Oaks, ca 91360.
[email protected]
MTC-00008995
From: Fabiano Moya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Att. To Whom it May Concern
As many others Alternative Operational Systems that have been
hurt by the monopolistic policies of MicroSoft. We received the
request from the headers of various projects to manifest ourselves
and let our minds be known, so here it is, agreeing to the last ii
and jj to the requests being made by many users all over the world.
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if
the following issues aren't addressed:
*MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested in
porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either in
form of a source code license or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non- Windows OSs
can read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with
Windows users.
*The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
*The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
*The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM
Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
MTC-00008996
From: Stu Adler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough! Microsoft provides excellent product support
at no charge, while their competitors don't even know what the term
means. Microsoft has EARNED their position by savvy marketing,
customer support and reasonable prices. The agreement with the DOJ
was fair. What the states want is the destruction of Microsoft so
that their home town losers can form a new monopoly of high priced
products with lousy service. This is NOT in the best interest of the
community of users!
Stu Adler
14914 Mayall St.
Mission Hills, CA 91345
MTC-00008997
From: Jack O'Leery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:45am
Subject: settlement
B.Gates, et al:
MSFT uber alles!! Don't give up the ship. The whole US is sick
and tired of the DOJ hammering MSFT with no real objective other
than to inflate the egos of its zealot lawyers. All the best, and
happy new year!!
OPHTH1, an admirer.
MTC-00008998
From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a Microsoft ``Consumer'', as well as a Microsoft
shareholder in my IRA. I am retired and a Social Security recipient.
And I guess that this is my only opportunity to say what I think re
the DOJ vs. Microsoft settlement. So here it is.
If Netscape, Sun Microsystems, et al, think that they have been
``screwed'', how about me? As I recall, Netscape joined with AOL in
a deal that paid Netscape appx. four billion dollars. Now isn't that
a sad story! But I had Microsoft stock in my IRA for my retirement
days (I am now 73 years of age), and I lost 50% of my retirement
fund within days of the time that Judge Jackson, extremely biased
against Microsoft by anybody's standards,decided to rule that the
company that has done more for the U.S. economy than any other in
recent history should be split apart. My retirement funds, along
with those of thousands of others, were lost apparently because
Microsoft's competitors opted to pressure Congress (Orrin Hatch, for
one) and the Department of Justice to make their businesses
successful, rather than to achieve comparable success through their
own brain power and effort.
I owned my own small business and no Attorney General, lawyers
or courts helped me. My company provided good products and good
service. And when I installed a Microsoft system (that makes me a
``Consumer'') I did not feel cheated. I was happy with the product I
purchased and am still happy with the equipment I still use at home
in my retirement years. But my retirement prospects are not nearly
such a pretty sight due to this litigation that is going on and on
and on and on.
The proposed settlement appears to be a good one for all
concerned. My
[[Page 25098]]
congratulations to both the Department of Justice and Microsoft for
that. But what right do those still opposing the settlement have to
harm me further for their own selfish interests? Let them get to
work, just as I did (on a smaller basis, of course), and make it on
their own merits instead of sponging off of someone else's
intelligence and hard work.
In this time of national stress this country and all of us need
all of the incentive our economy and our stock market can get. Our
President is right! Our economy needs a stimulus--and it won't come
by cow-towing to limited selfish interests by such as those refusing
to accept the proposed settlement and vowing to pursue further
litigation. Let's get on with what's best for our country, our
elderly (myself and my wife included), and all others with
retirement programs of all ages, our military men and women, and
those who are just plain happy with their Microsoft products.
Enough of this particular hassling and litigation. Bill and
Melinda Gates have set an outstanding example by donating over a
billion dollars of their personal income (undoubtedly mostly from
Microsoft profits) to very worthy charities throughout the world.
How rewarding it would be if some of these litigation-happy
competitors would do likewise with even a small fraction of the big
bucks they are contributing to big-name trial lawyers!!
God Bless America.
Respectfully Submitted,
S. Ben Riva
Bellevue, Washington .
MTC-00008999
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would just like to say that Microsoft should not be broken up
by any means. It's not the jurisdiction of our government do define
competition as total equality. It would be punishing people who have
worked hard to create a product that people like and buy. The
government does not have the right to say who prospers or define
one's earnings. Now that Explorer is free it forces Netscape to be
original, provide the consumer with something new that Explorer does
not allow. It forces other people to create, to strive. You do not
punish Gates for being successful. Apple computer still has a
wonderful product which they sell. The government suppressing
individuals ability to create is everything the framers of our
constitution would go against. Gates has the right to his property.
This is the equivalent of if I owned large amounts of land so I
could sell it at lower prices hurting real estate companies, so the
government took my land. That says that my property is not mine, but
rather everything I own is up to the discretion of the state to
take. We do not live in a socialist government, and I fear that this
decision would be another attempt for the government to define our
lives as a collective regime to help one another. Look the
government cannot violate ones property rights. If this decision
goes through then that says that says the government can control
ones property which is strait communist no doubt.
There's no violation of the law unless Microsoft hurts the
rights of another. The constitution says we as individuals have the
right in the pursuit of happiness. That does not mean happiness is
guaranteed to the individual. Neither does it mean the state has the
right to define the level of happiness we're allowed. Please please
please do not break up Microsoft.
MTC-00009000
From: The Talleys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:52am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I agree with the terms of the settlement.
MTC-00009001
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:30am
Subject: Comment on proposed settlement
Microsoft continues to misbehave. I have become aware of
additional problems with the company that were not even addressed in
the initial complaint. Specifically I have become employed in Korea
and it seems that the Korean keyboards are designed to only switch
to Korean if used under the Windows operating system. Such behavior
is proof that the company will do anything it feels it can get away
with while others are not looking.
Please open your eyes to reality! Do you really want Microsoft
software running on your systems? You'll permit them to sabotage the
government through their own software and operating systems if you
don't watch out! It seems also that somehow the hidden hand of
Microsoft is at work with various sites on the web, getting them to
switch from Real Player which is cross-platform compatible to
Windows media player for streaming media files which require the
user to connect through Windows, despite the fact that numerous Unix
web browsers exist.
You've got to force them to reveal source code to ALL who
require it to create applications to work with Microsoft-generated
files (WMA, AVI, etc), and not just to companies that operate for
profit but open-source developers as well, many of whom do what they
do in order to build up credentials to be hired as experienced
programmers. (Or do you want to continue to inport H1-Bs?)
Sincerely,
Frederick L Artiss
MTC-00009002
From: Jwelsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You're wasting time and money. Microsoft has advanced
civilization and the ``sharks'' are looking for a pay day. You're
attempting to punish genius and reward those who refuse or can't
recognize it.
JWelsh
CC:'Microsoft'
MTC-00009003
From: Linda Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Please, please for the good of this country and our economy,
let's accept the Microsoft settlement and stop further litigation.
This should have never happened in the first place. Our economy
needs a strong microsoft. This settlement is in the best interest of
us all. NO MORE LITIGATION.
THANK YOU,
Linda Paul
P.S. I am not even a PC user--I prefer Macs. See, we all do have
free choice. No one twists anyone's arm to buy or use just one
companies goods.
MTC-00009004
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets settle this case as decided and move on!! Laurie Snow Hein
MTC-00009005
From: Michael Korbekian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to settle the Microsoft case an move on with
business. Microsoft has been innovative in providing consumers with
the products they desire. A few non competitive companies want to
hold Microsoft responsible for giving consumers what they want. In
light of the tragic events and the slowdown in the U.S. economy, its
time to settle this case and move on to more important things.
MTC-00009006
From: scottmc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the current settlement will not go far enough. There
needs to be made a lavel playing field where other Operating Systems
will get a fair chance at being preloaded on PCs from the OEMs. I
worked for Zenith Data Systems from 1989 to 1996 when they shut the
plant down. I saw Microsoft Products being installed on almost every
PC going through the factory. I was told that even WHEN we installed
another OS such as Novell on servers, that Zenith was having to pay
Microsoft a fee based on the number of PCs sold with or WITHOUT
Microsoft software on them!! What BS! Now here is a good chance to
make Microsoft and the OEMs out there for that matter, allow PCs to
be preloaded with BeOS (perhaps from Palm Inc or BeUnited's group),
Linux, Novell, or one of the many others who could step up. Gobe has
released an office suite which is very comparable to Microsoft's
Office product, but I fear that it won't get a chance due to
Microsoft power to control the OEMs and the PC world in general.
Please do something to change all this.
Scottmc
Scott McCreary
2389 McBride Lane Apt 82
Santa Rosa CA 95403
MTC-00009007
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:20am
[[Page 25099]]
Subject: TUNNEY ACT
IT IS TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP PERSECUTING MICROSOFT. WHY
DOES THE GOVERNMENT WANT TO STOP INOVATION AND INGENUITY? BILL GATES
AND HIS ASSOCIATES HAVE CONTRIBUTED MORE TO THE WELFARE THAN ALL OF
CONGRESS PUT TOGETHER. THERE IS NO MONOPOLY--JUST GOOD BUSINESS DONE
IN THE AMERICAN WAY. I RESENT HAVING MY TAX MONEY SPENT IN THIS
MANNER. GET OFF MICROSOFT'S CASE. CONGRESS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED
FOR GIVING 1.6 MILLION DOLLARS TO PEOPLE IN NEW YORK WHO LOST
SOMEONE IN THE ATTACK ON 9/11. STOP THE PERSECUTION OF MICROSOFT
NOW. LET IT GO NO FURTHER. MARTIN L. HEALEY
MTC-00009008
From: jody yanovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:50am
Subject: MS vs DOJ Settlement
I beleive the settlement that you have reached with Microsoft is
fair and the courts should accept it as the best option for all
parties involved including the 9 state AG that are still holding
out. There is no question that the remaining 9 state AGs are
continuing this litagation for the best interest of Microsoft's
competitors and not to benefit consumers. Please ask the court to
accept your settlement as the best option for consumers like myself,
the economy, and the company.
Thanks
MTC-00009009
From: Bill Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement 5 Bayberry Drive Amherst, NH 03031-
2513 January 2, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of
Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am writing you this brief letter to urge
you, the Justice Department, and the federal government as a whole
to suspend any further deliberations on the Microsoft antitrust
case, adopt the proposed settlement and lay this long suffering to
rest. The settlement fairly addresses the major complaints of
Microsoft's competitors. Computer manufacturers will have rights to
configure Windows in order to promote non- Microsoft software
programs. The company will design future Windows versions in a
manner to make it easy for software developers to promote use of
non-Microsoft software. These and many accommodations will surely
open up the IT field to greater competition and innovation.
I simply think it's time to allow Microsoft to get back to work.
Please continue to support your department's settlement plan, and
don't let the special interests sway you toward another round of
selfish negotiation and opportunistic exploitation of a large
company.
Sincerely,
William Dunn
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009010
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement reached with Microsoft, while it represents an
unnecessary and dangerous incursion into the marketplace, is much
more fair than the actions that could have been taken. I use
Microsoft's products and respect that company's competence in its
field. Therefore, my wife and I are very much in favor of the
current settlement (the Tunney Act) and wish to see it completed and
gotten out of the way so this company and others like it can get on
with business.
Thomas D. and Karen K. Gensler
412 Sunset Bay Rd
Hot Springs, AR 71913
MTC-00009011
From: Randy Marcoline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:08am
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement Is EGREGIOUS and GISGRACEFUL to
the Citizens of America!!!!!!!!
You all should hang your heads in disgrace. You are a DISGRACE
to the justice system!!! on you!!!!!!!
Signed,
A Law Abiding American Businessman.
MTC-00009012
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:10am
Subject: (no subject)
enough already.....you are hurting the economy with this .....
consumers are not hurt....just lousy companies that don't make
better products.microsoft has made the computer Easier to use.
enough already
MTC-00009013
From: Rob Judd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'll keep this brief, since I'm sure you're getting lots of
mail. Microsoft's handling of competing products has destroyed my
business, which was developing software for BeOS (the Be Operating
System). Be, Inc found they could no longer market their product in
the opressive environment set up by the monolith of the industry and
turned up its toes last year. While many of us are trying to revive
the BeOS, our real projects fall further behind.
If Bill Gates and his cohorts manage to weasel their way out of
this case, I'll be very disappointed. All right, there's no point
having power unless one can abuse it to some degree, but this has
gone too far, too long and hurt too many. I should note that both
myself and an associate in another electronics business have also
been hurt by Microsoft's voracious acquisition of high-tech hardware
companies, including those in the chip manufacturing and audio
areas.
Rob Judd
Judd Electronics
Melbourne, Australia
MTC-00009014
From: Rich Riffle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do what you can to ensure that the Microsoft litigation
settlement continues on schedule. Now that there is an agreement in
place, let it be finalized. Further delays won't benefit consumers
like me.
Thanks.
Rich Riffle
MTC-00009015
From: Jim Hassan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the time has come to end all of the litigation. An
end-user such as myself is not benefiting at all from this suit! The
only winners in all of this are the lawyers who will reap millions.
Why is the DOJ wasting our taxpayer money on something as ridiculous
as this? All of this has absolutely no impact or benefit to end
users! So end it now and start doing something of importance.
MTC-00009016
From: C. Gamester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
The following briefly summarizes my opinions and conclusions
concerning the Microsoft anti-trust case(s), from my perspective as
a consumer, shareholder and patriotic American. I believe they are
shared by many others like me. It is time to end the the legal war
on Microsoft for the following reasons:
1. The attack on Microsoft by the Reno/Klein DOJ was misguided
from the start. American anti-trust laws are meant to protect
consumers, not businesses losing in open market competition.
Consumers benefit when business seek to ``level their competitors''
not when governments seek to ``level the playing-field.'' Protect
the businesses and you get Europe.
2. I believe the attack on Microsoft was motivated to a
significant degree by issues of political contributions and personal
career aspirations. Microsoft failed to lobby government entities on
the same scale as its competitors. Some politicians collaborated
with Microsoft's competitors, who they considered constituents. I
believe others saw Microsoft's balance sheet as a ``giant honey
pot'' and wanted to ``wet their beak.'' I believe some State
Attorneys General sought to further their personal careers via the
publicity that came with pursuing a lawsuit against Microsoft.
3. The results to date have been profoundly damaging to the U.S.
economy and millions of savers and investors. The financial losses
in the retirement accounts of millions of workers and retirees,
while incalcuable, must far, far outweigh any possible benefits to
consumers in general. How have consumers benefited at all?
Just stop it!
Charles Gamester
[[Page 25100]]
Mesa, Arizona
MTC-00009017
From: lee innocenti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am definately in favor of the settlement. It is a fair one and
we need to get on with the business of rebuilding our economy, of
which Microsoft is a big part.
Sincerely,
Lee Innocenti
Suffern, New York
MTC-00009018
From: Bob Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TWIMC,
It is my opinion that the Microsoft Settlement should be settled
as proposed by the DOJ. Further litigation by special interests,
that only weight the competitive discussions in the favor of those
entities that have inferior products, must be stopped. Let us, the
users of these products be the judge (in the free market) of which
products best suit our needs and pocketbook. DO NOT PROLONG
litigation any further and stop the stifling of innovation.
Martin R. Olsen
Heavy Computer User
49 Stratford Place
New City, NY 10956-4666
MTC-00009019
From: Albert Lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom it may Concern at the US Dept.
of Justice: Re: Microsoft Settlement
While I think the final judgement is fair, I also think that
this lawsuit should have NEVER been brought against Microsoft in the
first place. Especially considering the bias of the prosecuting
attorney and the presiding judge in the original case.
It was quite obvious that the prosecutor was out to get
Microsoft from the very beginning. That is not the job of a
prosecutor. His job is to seek justice, whether criminal or civil.
The type of justice the original prosecutor was seeking was criminal
in HIS intent. His intent was obviously to destroy Microsoft.
While I'm sure that something needed to be done so that
Microsoft did not unfairly punish OEM's, I think it could have been
worked out in a less expensive manner to U.S. Taxpayers. This
lawsuit will ultimately cost the consumer in increased prices for
Microsoft product to cover the expense of the trial, and to US
taxpayers for the government's cost. As a US taxpayer, I am upset,
angry and appalled at the U.S. Government's total disregard for my
fiscal well being. But I guess I should be used to it by now. For at
least 80 years, the Federal government doesn't really care about the
individual Citizen, only the country as a whole.
But when you diminish me, as an individual, do you not diminish
the whole? Settle the case as is, and find different ways to attack
my wallet. And For Your Information, I am not now, nor have I ever
been an employee of Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Albert Lowe (Out of work PC Tech)
4400 Edgar Rd. Trlr 29
Leslie, MI 49251
517-589-6962
MTC-00009020
From: Lyle F Neff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to move on and put this Microsoft litigation behind
us. The self serving States Attorney General have spent enough
taxpayers money for their own glorification. Accept the settlement,
end the litigation, and let us return the business of business. This
litigation, started by the Clinton administration, has been a
disaster to the economy of the country.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lyle F. Neff
MTC-00009021
From: Bobby Schulman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:31am
Subject: Comment on the Settlement with Microsoft
I have followed the government action against the Microsoft
Corporation since it began. When the settlement was finally reached,
I was surprised and quite pleased with the method by which the
matter was concluded.
This settlement which benefits school children is a wonderful
idea. Further, I believe it's a thoughtful and very positive way to
penalize an offender. We Americans recognize that there are very few
priorities more important that our children's future. The penalty
while costly to Microsoft, becomes a very rich blessing for the
children ... wrapped inside of a valuable lesson about our laws. I
salute those of you in the Department of Justice who helped to craft
this settlement. Please continue your fine and creative work.
Robert Schulman
4425 NW 65th Ave.
Lauderhill, FL 33319
MTC-00009022
From: M. Cassidy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern: We believe the Microsoft settlement is
fair and should not be further drawn out with more litigation by the
Government and special interest groups at the expense of American
Taxpayers.
J and M Cassidy
Marilyn Cassidy
780 Brentwood Point
Naples, Florida 34110-7910
MTC-00009023
From: Jerry Kreps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:53am
Subject: Internet will become Microsoft's pesonal property
An additional comment:
The Internet became practical when a CERN researcher developed
the HTTP protocol and put it into the public domain. Had he patented
it instead, the HTTP protocol would have joined the numerous other
networking protocols that languished. The others were languishing
because they were controlled by patents. Folks were not interested
in paying a fee to be able to use a network that they already owned
by virtue of the taxes they paid which allowed our government to
develop the precursor to the internet.
HOWEVER, THE INTERNET IS STILL NOT SAFE FROM CAPTURE by greedy
corporations that have no repsect for the law, i.e., Microsoft.
Protecting a protocol, so-called `intellectual property', as apposed
to a tangible invention, with patents will absolutely kill it dead,
as the numerous but unused networking protocols prove. A patented
protocol gives the holder of the protocol absolute power of monopoly
over the users/adopters of that protocol backed by the law. The
patent holder can charge whatever he likes and can blackmail or put
anybody using it out business if he likes--you can't reverse
engineer it and you can't code around it. Very few companies will
willingly choose such an option.
It was this patenting madness, motivated by greed, which stifled
the development of the Unix operating system, and it's desktop, the
CDE. These events allowed a new software company, which relied
heavily on OPEN SOURCE software made available to the public domain
by the Regents of the University of California, to take advantage of
the greed gridlock and develop a product called `Windows'. Even
today, Microsoft borrows heavily from the Open Source community,
without returning anything of value, to extend the functionality of
its software at little expense to itself. With clever marketing,
aided by illegal contracts and business practices, Microsoft was
able to develop something the Unix companies couldn't, a monopoly.
In the early days, purchasers of Windows could move their copy of
Windows from an old machine, which they were selling or discarding,
to their new machine. Or, if they had two machines they could use a
single copy of Windows on both machines. Or, they could sell the PC
and the WIndows on it, to another person. Or, they could give the PC
and Windows to a charity. When Microsoft became secure in its
monoply position it changed the lease to FORCE users to purchase a
NEW copy of Windows if they bought a new machine. or purchased a
used one.
They forced OEM's to sell a copy of Windows with each PC they
sold, EVEN IF THE CUSTOMER DIDN'T WANT IT, a blatent violation of
the Sherman--Clayton Anti-Trust act, and one so obvious it is
amazing that the DOJ never bothered to enforce the Act against
Microsoft, but chose a lame `bundling' issue instead. HAD THE DOJ
DONE ITS JOB the monopoly would not have existed and consumers would
have had other Operating System options which would have allowed
them to avoid the ``Microsoft Tax''.
[[Page 25101]]
The only company that can benefit from software patents is one
which already has a monopoly eg. Microsoft. In this case a protocol
such as .Net can be forced onto users, developers and deployers by
virtue of Microsoft's desktop monopoly, and this monopoly can be
extended to servers and Internet by using software patents to
exercise monopoly control over everyone who talks to any desktop,
include Linux KDE desktops, all servers and the Internet itself.
This is Microsoft's big plan for the future.
This sham settlement will assure the success of Bill Gate's
`dream', which will become our nightmare. The Internet will be
divided into two camps, one controlled by Microsoft, and the other
controlled by tyrannical governments. The hard part will be trying
to tell the difference. Doubt this? Then consider that in a blatant
attempt to control and/or manipulate the poltical climate Microsoft
has unilaterally removed certain politically incorrect words from
the Microsoft Office Dictionary. Or, consider that Microsoft
released an upgrade' to Internet Explorer (their browser) which
automatically rewrote web pages on the fly, inserting Microsoft URLs
and ad banners, without the permission of the site creators. You are
a third party and have a site selling a software application that
competes with one of Microsoft's software products. When visitors
display your website ads for Microsoft's product appear on/over your
own product on your own site. Such is the power of a monoply. What's
next? Releasing an `upgrade' to Microsoft Money that certain stocks
from being be added to a portfolio? Controlling online poltical
discussions or contents of emails?
Communist governments control their citizens directly by decree.
Fascist governments control the cartels which control the citizens.
The difference is cosmetic. Your sham settlement will allow an
uncontrolled cartel, Microsoft, to control public discouse and
commerce on the Internet by giving ownership of the Internet to
Microsoft, lock, stock and barrel, via its ``.NET'' protocols.
Jerry Kreps
MTC-00009024
From: H Tavassolie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
As an American citizen I would like to settle this prolong and
somewhat unfair litigation that has been proven of harming the
public interest. Microsoft innovations has created enormous public
benefit, and facilitated our life. I give you an example, I
purchased Microsoft word, but my computer didn't have enough memory,
after a month,I had a chance to return it, the store said ``We
usually do not accept this late soft weir return, but because of
Microsoft policy we will accept it''. The price was near $400.00.
Therefore,I urge you and ask you to please settle this unfair to
public litigation as soon as possible.
Sincerely.
MTC-00009025
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:05am
Subject: microsoft settlement-from citizen
Issue of microsoft/government lawsuit: 01-05-02
As a tax paying citizen I feel the time is overdue to settle the
microsoft vs government lawsuit issue. I cannot comprehend the
reality of the suit regarding so-called microsoft monopoly when
monopolies of far greater caliber are being perpetrated by giant
industries that will have a far more significant and sinister impact
on people of the world. What about the creation of monopolies formed
by union of various components of the medical system, pharmaceutical
and petroleum giants and energy companies? What efforts are being
made to control them?
Personally, if I never had a computer I could live without it.
My life would not be affected! But, my life is being effected right
now, and more so in the near future by cost and availability of
pretroleum products, energy sources and worst of all, horrific
increase in cost of medical services and medications. These
industries, through costly lobbying, control the political system of
the U.S. which is not in the best interest of people like me--the
people who pay the bills.
Gerald Foye
9857 Old Ridge Road
Spring Valley, CA 91977
[email protected]
619-465-2094
MTC-00009026
From: Steve Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I feel that the settlement with Microsoft is a very fair one.
There will be many individuals and companies that will write to the
contrary but I think that there are many things influencing them
other than what is fair. Microsoft has been a major force in our
economy in the past and if given the chance may contribute in
pulling us out of this down turn.
Thank you,
Steve Robinson
[email protected]
4958 Monaco Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94566
MTC-00009027
From: Russell Caldwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
I'm not happy with the settlement you made with Microsoft. It
seems like you are allowing them to do the same business practices
that brought on the litigation in the first place. Please do not
allow them to squash the competition the way they have in the past.
Thanks.
Russel Caldwell
MTC-00009028
From: Ted Leeuwesteijn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
``I am part of a worldwide network of business that is working
on getting the BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but
there is no hope of success if the following issues aren't
addressed: MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers
interested in porting it or understanding the document formats can
do so either in form of a source code license or an allowance to see
it, check it and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-
Windows OSs can read and write MS Office formats for flawless
interaction with Windows users.
The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too. The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users
can continue to access files on non-BFS partitions. The ruling must
include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM Microsoft is
supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an alternative operating
system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy the damage MS has done
to BeOS and lots of others in the past.
Personally to my business MS has endorsed to get me to be a OEM
dealer providing i won't sell other or at least load up other OSes
onto my systems. So theorecly i would not be able to serve my
clients wishes to the fullest just because MS won't allow me to.
Well in my opinion it's up to the client to decide which services
and tools they like to use and not the ones MS want me to upload on
a PC. There are severall cases known about simulair issues, i name a
few Hitachi has encountered it as wel as compaq.
Now if i buy a car at a certen dealer, the manufacturer may
advize in the brand and type of fuel i will be charging it but in
the end it's certenly my choice which one to choose from as long as
the fuel complies to their recommendations and technological specs.
And then not to mention that they are distributing unsafe and
unstable software and so to speak a less superior prodact than many
others o know and have used. They knowingly abuse this so called
features to rule the world on a certen market.
If a car company do such a thing(GoodYear) they get the largest
trouble at their adress but it seems that MS can get away with
anything in that area. I like to refer to a few articles which may
have escaped your attention and i like you to study them.
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/
http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22670.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/21410.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21347.html
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110 and some
information about beos
http://www.gcn.com/vol19--no23/reviews/2637-1.html
With the kindest regards and respect,
Ted Leeuwesteijn
[[Page 25102]]
managing director
BeOS oem dealer for the Netherlands & Europe.
MTC-00009029
From: Owie Jaggi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:19am
Subject: microsoft
If microsoft is charged then so should AOL
I believe microsoft has been unduly charged. I have tried to use
aol programs while subscribed to microsoft; they either would not
work or they screwed up my MSprograms. I believe this was
intentional on the part of aol. On the other hand MS has given away
more free software programs to the public than any other
provider;especialy aol. People who have a little knowledge of cp,s
choose MS because they know it is a much better product with with
better service; while aol has a clientel of mostly people who have
very little or no knowledge of computers. But then it pays to
advertise (which aol does a lot of) which MS does little of ;like on
public tv. When aol users gain a little knowledge aboutCP,s they
usually switch to MICROSOFT. I for one wished there was some way to
keep aol products completley off of my CP; but for some reason aol
seems to show up in my software every now and then and I have to
delete it.
MTC-00009030
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No further litigation is necessary. Settle the case. Settlement
is the best thing for American consumers
Respectfully
An American voter and taxpayer
C.A. Rockefeller
MTC-00009031
From: Frank Byrd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Please support an expeditious close to the folly of the
Microsoft case, which has made a mockery of the spirit and proper
application of US anti-trust laws.
It is harmful enough that competitors who are losing their
battles in the free market are increasingly attempting to manipulate
the DOJ to their advantage. Now state politicos, who have such
obvious agendas, have made this an even more ludicrous circus. The
DOJ serves so many noble purposes in this country. Artificially
``managing'' our economy should not be one of them.
Respectfully,
Frank Byrd, CFA
212-697-2886
Midtown Capital Partners
565 5th Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10017
MTC-00009033
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:04pm
Subject: Public interest
LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. THE
ANTITRUST LAWS ARE NON-OBJECTIVE. ALL THEY'RE FOR IS GIVING ENVIOUS
COMPETITORS TRUMPED UP GROUNDS TO GO AFTER THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST.
IF YOU DON'T COLLABORATE WITH YOUR COMPETITION UNDER ANTI-TRUST,
YOU'RE ``GUILTY'' OF ``CUTTHROAT COMPETITION''. IF YOU DO
COLLABORATE WITH YOUR COMPETITION UNDER ANTI-TRUST, YOU'RE
``GUILTY'' OF ``PRICE-FIXING''. THE ANTITRUST LAWS GET YOU COMING
AND GOING AND ARE A FRAUD!!! REPEAL ANTITRUST!!!!!!
MTC-00009034
From: luckinh nguyen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft setlement
Please leave Microsoft alone to do its business. The U.S.A. and
the whole world need a leader in software business. We sure don't
want to have to learn 100 different ways to use our computer just
because U.S.J.D wants to have 100 strong companies.
Without Microsoft and Intel companies, the U.S. which has been
way behind the Japanese in the 80%, would never have a chance to go
back to be the world leader again since the 90's. I don't understand
why we want to weaken our own strength to give the Europeans and the
Japaneses a new chance to get ahead (example Boeing vs Airbus in
airplane business, and the Toyota vs Ford in car business).
My opinion is if the U.S. government will not support Microsoft
(or any of the industry leader), it should not constrain it either.
The United States of America is strong and will be a strong country
because its citizens and corporates are allowed to have the freedom
to think and to act. GOD BLESS AMERICA FOREVER. An Immigrant from
Vietnam Ken Nguyen e-mail address: [email protected]
MTC-00009035
From: htd1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
Gentlemen:
Please proceed with finalizing settlement agreed upon between
DOJ, States and Microsoft.
George Gundersen
MTC-00009036
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I use windows-98, AOL for Internet access and the
yahoo search engine. That combo works for me. I own a lot of tech
stocks and like the freedom we have to get out and make the next
``widget.'' I support the Microsoft settlement, and look forward to
the next innovation in technology wherever it comes from.
Let all of us get back to the business of living our lives and
paying to many taxes.
Christina Staib
Carmel, CA
MTC-00009037
From: LW
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
I believe the Microsoft settlement should be finalized as
presented to the Dept. Of Justice. The case has gone on too long, it
is not clear to me that the company has done anything criminal, and
it is time to end the costly litigation.
Sincerely,
Les Weinberg
MTC-00009038
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I applaud all parties to the litigation for settling the
Microsoft case. It is best for the Country, for our economy and for
the technology sector of our economy. I am happy that the Department
of Justice, Microsoft and the States have arrived at this
settlement. It gives me a great deal of confidence for our economy
in 2000 and the years beyond.
George Staib
MTC-00009039
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case has gone on far too long and needs to be
settled soon without negatively impacting Microsoft. Breaking up the
company is a bad idea and should not be pursued nor should
protracted legal action. Get this behind us with a process to insure
review and monitoring of their actions so that they don't take undue
advantage of their past success.
You have spent far too much of my money (tax dollars) on this
case and I hope you go after the real bad guys.
Sincerely,
Russ Wood
1211 224th PL NE
Samammish, WA 98074
425-868-7200
MTC-00009040
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ref: Public Input
Lets settle the issue now! It has gone on long enough, the point
has been made and we need to move on to more critical things.
The settlement is one of the lowest items on my personal radar
and we have things to attend to that are so much more critical that
I consider any further delay of this settlement to be malfeasance of
office on the part of the DOJ.
Signed,
Thomas Boyer
[email protected]
MTC-00009041
From: Joe K
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25103]]
Date: 1/6/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft never had any monopoly in the market for personal
computer. One would only believe this is they were computer
illiterate. Being in the Information Technology business for 20
years I saw how Microsoft made quality products for personal and
business use. There have always been choices for which operating
system to use, if you didn't realize this then it is very obvious
that you made the right decision without even knowing it. Besides
why would Microsoft create application software for a competitor's
operating system (example Macintosh) if they wanted a monopoly?
Weren't they actually helping this competitor by giving both
businesses and consumers more reasons to buy Mac?
I know that there is much more meat to this and I am being very
brief, but I just wanted to get a sentence in without spending all
day on this. Microsoft has done a great job throughout the years on
bringing quality products to the consumer in a highly competitive
market. Nobody every forced me to buy Microsoft, it was my choice.
Give Microsoft the freedom to innovate so that we can have better
products to work with and our children will have better tools to
learn with.
Thanks for Listening.
Joe Karas
MTC-00009042
From: John Webster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer user since 1978 I want to emphasize the great good
accomplished by Microsoft in integrating services and making high
quality software. My family strongly supports settling this lawsuit
quickly and fairly to allow Microsoft to focus on what they do very
well, the production of fairly priced and extraordinarily good
software.
J.S. Webster, MD
San Diego, CA
MTC-00009043
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 12:50pm
Subject: (no subject)
The settlement appears to be a raw deal for the public and for
the USA, but a windfall for Microsoft (and I am a Microsoft
shareholder). Bill Gates can make billions for himself and his
shareholders if he concentrates on it. He needs to take his lumps on
this one and move on so he can concentrate on what is important.
Microsoft contributed thousands if not millions in the last election
and have probably promised much more. The Judge is not an idiot. He
was the first Judge appointed by Pres. Reagan, is an anti-trust
specialist and cannot be labeled a liberal. Microsoft clearly tried
to eliminate competition and the Judge found that it was illegal.
This settlement appears to be a ``handslap'', at best, if not a
favor for the political support given in 2000 and that promised in
the future.
Robert K. Whitt
915-686-2000
MTC-00009044
From: Robin McCain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:13pm
Subject: Present Microsoft settlement terms--OPPOSE
I urge you to oppose the currently proposed terms of the
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust action for the following
reasons:
Currently, it is possible to build a perfectly usable PC with
Linux and freeware office products for very little money--Microsoft
sees this as the biggest threat to their chances for a total
monopoly. If Microsoft is allowed to give ANY software to public
schools in lieu of a cash settlement, it will most likely result in
Microsoft soon being able to COMPLETELY DOMINATE the software market
and result in the demise of alternative operating systems and
software.
Acceptance of the settlement as it is now proposed will go
further towards the creation of a Microsoft monopoly than any other
action their marketing department could possible take, and totally
negates the spirit of the anti-trust action. So, I ask the U.S.
Attorney's legal team to reject any settlement involving ``software
products'', and to propose that the cash equivalent be given to the
schools in the form of non-brand specific vouchers, which could also
be used for alternative software (ie. not just for operating
systems, office products, and the like, but the vouchers could also
be used for learning software, consulting services, test preparation
aids, and other software tools). This would allow the schools to be
able to choose which brands of software they wanted to use and
teach. ``Software products'' cost Microsoft NOTHING... All the
distribution of these Microsoft software products would do is to
encourage children to BUY MORE Microsoft... ...and thus increase
Microsoft market share.
If the schools had these non-brand specific vouchers, they could
use them to endorse whichever software vendors they chose on an
individual basis, which would encourage and benefit the entire
software community, not just Microsoft--and would be much closer to
a truly fair remedy.
P.S. Why didn't the government seek injunctions to:
1. delay the release of any new Microsoft operating system
involving the technologies in question until the case had been
resolved?
2. deny Microsoft the ability to give away large numbers of free
copies of their new development system tools in the academic
environment. (This results in exactly the same problems the medical
community has had for years with the free pharmaceutical samples
from their manufacturers--an incentive for unfair advantage at the
expense of the public) The current situation has simply resulted in
a ``business as usual'' continuation of the original anti-
competitive behavior.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009045
From: eduardo chin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:14pm
Subject: TO THE US DEPT. OF JUSTICE and all States oppossed to the
arrived TO THE US DEPT. OF JUSTICE and all States oppossed to the
arrived settlement:
Let the business of running a good business be left to the good
enterprenuers of our industries. It is time to let Microsoft to get
back to what the public wants it to provide them: good products and
good service at prices public will want to pay for. Stop running the
competition using the courts legal system. This country needs more
enterprising companies that will do good for our economy and provide
more jobs to our citizenry. Stop wasting our tax dollars and
microsoft resources in courts.
e.chin
MTC-00009046
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a microsoft purchaser of software and as a follower of
government actions, I strongly object to the government's actions to
penalize Microsoft. It is past time for the government to pursue
entities that are a danger. Microsoft is not the enemy.
Craig Gradick
[email protected]
MTC-00009047
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to you to express my disdain over the continued
attempts to frustrate the settlement of the Microsoft case, by what
is certainly a minority of computer users in this country, fueled by
competitors of Microsoft and politicians who are NOT familiar with
PC software (let alone PCs).
I wrote many of these same words to Senator Charles Schumer of
New York because of his anti-Microsoft involvement and obvious lack
of knowledge on the subject of their software packages. What he was
doing was nothing short of impeding progress. Of course, as I
suspected would be the case, I never received a reply from his
office.
I am 46 years old, I have been in the business world my entire
career, and I am proficient in the use of personal computers. My use
of computers has developed over the years as a natural extension of
my career (Financial Officer) as well as my personal interest in
them.
I have used PCs prior to Microsoft products such as Windows,
Office, and Internet Explorer, and extensively since the Microsoft
Windows inception. I've used Lotus, and WordPerfect (they are NOT
Microsoft products). And without a doubt, Microsoft products are
superior to anything else out there. As for the completely baseless
worry that some of our politicians seem to have over the choice of
other products, or inability to use other products that aren't built
into Microsoft Windows--this simply shows that they do not know what
they are talking about.
Let me give you some analogies that should ring close to home...
Microsoft Windows
[[Page 25104]]
(older versions OR the new XP version released last Fall) offers
more flexibility, choice of using other products with it, etc., than
any of the following that I use:
1. My utilities. ANY of them.
2. My healthcare benefits, including choice of a physician.
3. My America Online account (a member for six years).
4. My local and long distance telephone carrier.
And consider this: I can add products to my PC, made by someone
other than Microsoft, and do it easily, ONLY because Microsoft has
brought standardization to the industry. They brought the concept of
``Plug and Play'' to the PC world, which means: Buy someone else's
products and Microsoft software actually assists your computer to
make sure it works, by identifying the drivers needed and making all
the interconnections necessary to connect it to your monitor,
printer, scanner or other peripherals!
Do that with any of the items listed above. Try to ``plug and
play'' a different electricity company this month because you are
tired of using the one you currently have. And then plug another one
in if that one doesn't suit you after a day of using it. Or try that
with your health plan. Or the physician you just used, and wish to
use another one for your visit next week. Good luck trying.
The point is, their software is theirs and in the opinion of
most PC-literate people out there, they have already gone out of
their way to accommodate other companies by allowing virtually any
software to be used in conjunction with it.
So the next argument is that even though it is possible to do,
it might be too difficult to use another software product with it?
Well let me tell you this...if you have just basic PC skills, it is
not that hard to substitute another product for the ones that come
with the Microsoft software packages. But let's just assume that it
takes a little effort to figure out how to do it... If you had the
option to do that with your health plan or your utilities would you
take the time to learn how to do it? You can bet your bottom dollar
that you would.
Now consider this: Millions of PC-literate people out there DO
know how to do this switch in products, but like me, they do not.
Because they don't want to.
That brings me back to my original comment: once you experiment
with the other products out there, you come back to the Microsoft
ones because they are the best. Why do you think their products are
used by virtually everyone out there? Because they were FORCED to
use them? Heaven knows that I have every capability of purchasing
the Lotus/WordPerfect suite of office software for work or at home,
but I wouldn't because I like the Microsoft Office package better.
And I could change my browser today to be Netscape's... but I won't
because I like the Internet Explorer.
It is time that the politicians quit making issues where there
aren't issues.
The focus on trying to find problems with Microsoft should be
left in the past with the inept administration that started it. We
should be thankful that this country is being led today by people
with true honor and dignity, who are bringing us together, united in
the quest for Freedom. And that means the freedom to choose the
Microsoft products, because they are superior to others, even if
every single PC owner in the world does so and the Microsoft
products become synonymous with ``Kleenex'' or ``Xerox.'' After all,
those companies MADE the markets that they still compete in. Perhaps
through other informed PC users out there, we can tell the Senator
Schumers and the lawyers representing Microsoft's competitors to get
with it and leave Microsoft alone. Microsoft has done more good for
this country, by bringing productivity enhancements to the business
world, and more information via PCs/PC software advancements to
people in their homes, than most of our politicians could ever hope
to do in their lifetime.
Sincerely,
Alan House
4858 Dublin Drive
North Royalton, OH 44133
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009048
From: Mary L. Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft--Settlement?
Sirs:
ANY indictment of Microsoft under such an abomination as ``The
Anti-Trust Law'' is a criminal act, as much as imposed on colonial
America by the British which precipatated the American Revolution.
As there should be NO INDICTMENT, there can then be NO SETTLEMENT,
therefore it should be a NON-ISSUE. To REPEAL ``The Anti-Trust Law''
is the only action to be taken at this time. Any so-called
``Settlement'' toward Microsoft by our United States government is
punishing the GOOD for BEING the GOOD!
Because a business is more profitable in its field than any
other is because it earned it. No government can call itself JUST by
intrusing on this business! Because other businesses cry like the
babies they are, the government should pay them NO attention. Let
them compete as they can through their own intelligence with their
own new ideas. NOone is telling them not to do this. ``The Anti-
Trust Law'' it's hurting consumers by inhibiting progress in
designing BETTER products--yes, BETTER even than Microsoft. Bill
Gates has said that he has to keep updating, inventing new products
etc., as he knows that at any time he could be topped by someone
else, and THAT'S the ONLY RIGHT anyone else has.
THINK your best premises, and quit badgering those who make life
better for each and every one of us--Microsoft competitors included!
Mary Lou Snyder
[email protected]
MTC-00009049
From: douglasleifeste
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To Whom U.S Goverment,
GET OFF THE BACK OFMICROSOFT CORP. YOU HAVE DONE ENOUGH TO HURT
ALL THE SMALL INVESTERS, AND STIFFLE FREE ENTERPRISE IN THIS FINE
COUNTRY.
DOUGLAS LEIFESTE
1214 VINE AVE
SUNNYSIDE WASH
MTC-00009050
From: hairdoc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:31pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft Computer should be accepted.
I do now and always have felt that the DOJ's and various state
attorneys suits against Microsoft Corp. are the result of the
prejudiced views of elected officials from states where Microsoft's
competition reside. This constitutes what I and everyone I speak to
considers an injustice perpetrated against Microsoft Corp. As you
know millions of our tax dollars have already been wasted in an
attempt to wrongfully punish this company. I and most Americans who
used P.C's. before the advent of Windows hold Microsoft in the
highest regard. I am proud of it's performance in dominating it's
field because in doing so it took us out of the realm of cryptic DOS
code and into the future of computing. Lets face it, the driving
force behind any great advancement has always been profit. By
punishing Microsoft for doing exactly what any other large
corporation or small businessman would do in it's place sends a bad
signal to those of us who have the nerve to gamble in the high
stakes world of business. By the way what would the trade deficit
have been last quarter if Microsoft did not sell software worldwide?
Please stop this nonsense and accept this settlement that is
already much larger then the so-called (but in my mind fabricated)
harm done to the ?public? Let this great American company thrive and
grow.
Thank you for considering my position.
Stephen F. Dasaro
MTC-00009051
From: LAWRENCE SHER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There is no need to prolong the litigation against the Microsoft
Corporation. It was an ill-conceived action to begin with and sends
the wrong message to highly innovative companies that advance
technology and our economy and provide continued world leadership
for the United States. The DOJ needs to be able to sort out the
whining of Microsoft's competitors vs. real potential damage from
one of the most successful technology innovators the country has
seen. Let's get on with it.
Lawrence Sher
14028 wind mountain Rd
Albuquerque NM 87112
MTC-00009052
From: Douglas Lipton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
Gentlemen:Right now in January 2002 the last thing the American
economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy
competitors of Microsoft and stifles
[[Page 25105]]
the enormous potential for innovation that Microsoft has always led
the way on.
Douglas Lipton
[email protected]
MTC-00009053
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Enough already. Let the settlement proceed. It may not be
perfect, but it's adequate. Close the deal and let's move on.
Jack Dinsfriend
MTC-00009054
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the entire matter has been a witch hunt and that
Microsoft has been unfairly targeted because it did it's job better
than it's competition. As a consumer, I never minded that Interent
Explorer has come loaded in all of my computers... and guess what?
I've never used it! The governments meddling in private industry has
cost millions and millions of dollars, and saddled Microsoft with a
tremendous burden that will ultimately be passed on to consumers.
How has the public interest really been served?
The reduced liability settlement is as fair as can be expected
after so much time and resources spent. As a citizen and consumer, I
believe enough is enough. If Microsoft has actually commited a
violation of anti-trust statutes, they have well paid a sufficient
penalty. I urge all parties to this matter to act quickly to bring
this unfortunate experience to a close.
MTC-00009055
From: mahria day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs or Madam,
I am writing to let the judge know of my views regarding the
Department of Justice's settlement regarding the Microsoft case. I
have submitted several emails to various Attorney Generals regarding
the Microsoft case. I am glad that some Attorney Generals have
decided not to join the settlement reached between the U.S.
Department of Justice and Microsoft. And I also concur that the
proposed settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper
remedy: halting the illegal conduct, promoting competition, and
depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains. I am writing to let the
judge to know of my views regarding the Department of Justice's
settlement.
Sincerely,
Mahria Day
MTC-00009056
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Secretary Ashcroft:
I firmly believe the Microsoft case should be closed without
further hardship or penalty to Microsoft. Microsoft is only guilty
of being an aggressive competitor and a successful business
organization. Aggressive competition is nothing new. I face it
everyday in my business. Aggressive competition is quite American.
It is encouraged in schools, sports, games and, yes, in business.
Success comes only through hard work, creativity, innovation and
market acceptance. Market acceptance is key and the federal
government should not punish businesses with products that are
accepted by consumers. I am hopeful the Microsoft Settlement will
come to a rapid disposition with no further penalty to Microsoft.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Norman E. Wisler
MTC-00009057
From: B. Hanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I have purchased and used every version of Microsoft Windows. I
currently own and use Microsoft Office and several other lesser
Microsoft programs. I have never felt that I was charged too much
for any of these products. To the contrary, I feel I'm being charged
far too much by the government's continued prosecution of the
Microsoft Anti- Trust case. I never felt there was a valid case to
begin with, but be that as it may, I now feel you have reached the a
point of diminishing returns. Please accept the current settlement
and stop waisting my tax money.
BH...
MTC-00009058
From: Matthew Harding, P.E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:01 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Mr. Ascroft, thank you for your
consideration. Matt Harding Matthew L. Harding 1428 S, Lindenwood
Drive Olathe, Kansas 66062 January 5, 2002 Attorney General John
Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing you today, to express my support for the recent
antitrust settlement between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft. I feel the stipulations of the recent settlement are
sufficient and that no further actions be taken against Microsoft.
Currently, Microsoft has agreed to many stipulations some of which I
feel to be too drastic. However, due to the fact that Microsoft
agreed to comply is reason enough to let this matter stand where it
is. This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations with a
court appointed mediator. Microsoft has agreed to compromise much
more than I would have if I were in their shoes. The sharing of
codes and more software information will be given to competitors,
thus creating more opportunities for other companies and providing
the consumer with even more choices.
After three long years of court battles, Microsoft and the
Government have settled the antitrust suit. Now more than ever our
economy needs to allow this settlement to end here. Money and other
resources need to be spent on more important issues currently facing
our nation. Please, let's allow Microsoft to focus on innovation,
rather than litigation.
Sincerely,
Matthew Harding
MTC-00009059
From: Ronald M. North
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:05pm
Subject: For years I have supported Microsoft as a user and as a
believer in the
For years I have supported Microsoft as a user and as a believer
in the integrity of the private sector. After December 3rd, 2001,
when Microsoft forced me to adopt their ``Hotmail'' and ``Passport''
garbage in order to get email I have been using for decades I have
changed my outlook. This change was a disaster for me and many
others whose Microsoft loaded computers crashed, were unable to
access any internet service and were insulted by Microsoft's
incompetent technicians (so incompetent they all refused to give
their names ``for security''). I now and for a long time in the
future urge the Justice Department to prosecute Microsoft to the
limits and them some until they realize their responsibilties to
their customers and to the larger good of the economy. Their
irresponsible behavior in putting out and forcing all customers to
adopt this disastrous ``downgrade'' in MSN service, which for me
resulted in 3 weeks of no service, $800 to fix my crashed computer,
a large business loss due to Microsoft management's arrogance and
incompetence should not go unresolved. Even today I and others I
know are unable to efficiently use non-microsoft utilities to
conduct our business.
Thanks.
S Ronald M. North,
165 Rocky Branch Road,
Athens GA 30605.
(706)548-2675
MTC-00009060
From: Michael O'Flaherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
As an independent software developer in the software industry
who utilizes both Microsoft software as well as software from other
competitors of Microsoft's, I wanted to send you a message telling
you that I feel that your handling of the Microsoft Antitrust case
and the settlement you and your department arrived at is very good.
I am alarmed that there are 9 states that appear to be holding out
for a more severe punishment, and I can tell you I feel any further
delay or change to this settlement can only hurt the economy at this
point. The business climate is already fragile (though improving),
and it is vital that a company such as Microsoft's be allowed to
move on. We need stability in this field at this point--allowing
this case to go further can only hurt this economy.
I encourage you to end this if possible, and focus your
attention where we really need it--the fight on terrorism (where I
feel you are doing a superb job!)
God bless you!
[[Page 25106]]
Michael O'Flaherty
eInvasion, Inc.
8580 Deer Meadow Blvd.
Streetsboro, OH 44241
MTC-00009061
From: William Franklin
To: Microsoft ATR,Jim Bunning,Mitch McConnel,president...
Date: 1/6/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After careful review of the proposed settlement I judge it to be
fair to all parties and especially the public.
Bill Franklin,
4 Westview Drive,
Madisonville, KY 42431
(270) 825-8719
MTC-00009062
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
It is time to end the prosecution (persecution) of MICROSOFT
CORPORATION. Is the next step to require MCDONALDS to sell WENDY'S
french fries? Get real, the cost of computers has come down ...
computer literacy is at an all time high, the computer you are
receiving this message on probably has a MICROSOFT operating system.
What it boils down to is that while Washington spends it's every
waking hour figuring out how to keep things status quo-- MICROSOFT
has become successful by giving the average citizen a tool to change
his or her life--at a reasonable cost.
We should be thankful for the contributions of this great
company instead of trying to find ways to penalize them for their
success. You owe Bill Gates and Company a big public apology for the
harassment.
Mike Winski
103 Sundance Pass
Lafayette, LA 70508
MTC-00009063
From: Joel Krist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice,
Please uphold the proposed settlement agreed to by the federal
government, Microsoft, and the nine states. The proposed settlement
is in the best interest of consumers. The states who continue to
oppose the settlement are doing so simply to protect the interests
of the businesses located within their borders. They are not truly
concerned with what's in the ``public interest, as the Tunney Act
requires. Microsoft's competitors claim that Microsoft's business
practices have stifled innovation and reduced choices for consumers
yet they have failed to show that consumers have been harmed. While
it's true that the technology agendas offered by Microsoft's
competitors face a fierce challenge, sometimes leading to their
failure, it's important to remember that the failure of a technology
or platform by itself does not necessarily mean consumers lose. Not
all technologies or platforms should succeed and it is the
marketplace and the consumer who should decide the winners and
losers. The proposed settlement offers tough, reasonable remedies
while at the same time it avoids destroying the freedom of
Microsoft, and its competitors, to innovate.
Sincerely,
Joel Krist
MTC-00009064
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settment
My wife, Carole G. Dorsey, and I (John W. Dorsey) would like to
voice our support for the provisions of the Tuney Act during the
public comment period. We feel that this setltlement is tough but
reasonable and fair to all parties involved.
MTC-00009065
From: Jack Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft is right!
Microsoft is wholy in the right, and the Justice Department is
wholy in the wrong. Microsoft benefits the nation, the government
regulations of business harm the nation. But that is not the
justification for Microsoft's right to exercise its own judgement in
producing and marketing its products. The justification is the same
as for my right to live my own life by my judgement. Them that don't
like me can leave me alone. Success in a free market legal system is
not an act of aggression--it is a badge of honor.
Jack Gardner
11212 Hidden Bluff Dr.
Austin, TX 78754
MTC-00009066
From: Edward B. Riggio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: US DOJ
It is time to finalize the Microsoft Settlement. Lets not
prolong this expensive Microsoft settlement any further. The actions
agreed to by Microsoft, Justice Department and nine states including
New York where I live, are fair and good for consumers. The other
plaintiffs are just trying to gain a competitive edge by delaying
the settlement. We need to get on with strengthening the economy and
one way to do this is to finalize the Microsoft Settlement by
February 1, 2002.
Respectively,
Ed Riggio
Woodstock, NY 12498
MTC-00009067
From: Joan and Dick Hinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle Now. Do not drag this on any longer as it should have
never been done in the first place.
J. Hinman
MTC-00009068
From: Michael J. Hutchinson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please approve the settlement.
MTC-00009069
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bennett Fisher
Johns Hopkins University
1/6/02
Microsoft Settlement
Bill Gates is one of the greatest business leaders in the
history of our capitalist country. He helped Microsoft gain
monopolistic power by using great business tactics and had the power
to use anticompetitive acts to preserve it. In United States v.
Microsoft, remedies are needed in order to lessen Microsoft's
control and increase competition. The remedies that the government
proposed are solid, but still allow Microsoft to act
anticompetitively. Noticing this lack of enforcement, Microsoft
jumped on the government's proposal. They even offered to donate
equipment and programs to needy schools in order to cover up their
excitement and show some remorse. The only effective solution in
this case is to have Microsoft license their technology to
competitors. This will avoid further problems and make consumers
better off.
By producing a Windows operating system that is cheaper, more
prevalent, and has more capabilities and potential than any other
operating system yet developed, Microsoft was able to capture an
incredible amount of the market share. More specifically, Microsoft
controlled an impressive 95% of the market. The court hearings and
proceedings stemmed not from the fact that they had this power, but
from their actions taken in order to maintain and preserve it. More
important than the anticompetitive acts themselves is the
realization that this type of market structure alone produces power
in that it creates natural barriers of entry. These natural barriers
result from the preferences of developers to work for an operating
system with a strong consumer base.
It is well known that Microsoft is a monopoly and controls
enough market power to effectively be considered one. Therefore,
that is not an issue that needs to be discussed. The reason it is
mentioned is that the more of the market that Microsoft controls,
the more power they have to dictate prices or exclude competition.
In other words, the have the ability to engage in anticompetitive
acts in order to maintain their power. As a direct result, the
government's main objective in proposing remedies was to lessen
Microsoft's control over the market and allow other software makers
to compete. More specifically, they wanted to discourage Microsoft
from developing software that other companies had already developed
for the Windows operating system and they wanted to stop Microsoft
from forcing dealings through exclusionary acts. The remedies
proposed by the government were not done so in order to knock
Microsoft completely out of the market. With the hope of giving all
software developers a fair chance, the government's proposal has
good core ideas, but lacks
[[Page 25107]]
execution. One of the proposals assures that competitor
manufacturers and software vendors remain free to offer and support
non-Microsoft software without the fear of punishment by Microsoft.
In other words, they can bundle Netscape and other non-associated
explorers to the Windows operating system. By giving competitors the
freedom to choose which software is built in, they control how the
technology evolves. The government's proposal also states that
Microsoft is not permitted to retaliate against software or hardware
vendors that are developing, using, distributing, permitting, or
supporting any software that competes with Microsoft. But, because
of the wording in these proposals, Microsoft can bypass this. For
example, they can retaliate against developers or vendors that are
not competitors. In addition, what constitutes retaliation? If
Microsoft produces a program for windows that has already been
designed to work with windows, is that considered retaliation?
Even the three person technical committee established to prevent
these problems is useless here because the power is based on their
personal interpretation of the decree. As a result, the decree does
nothing to establish a more efficient or direct way to control
Microsoft. It appears to almost rely on the good faith of Bill Gates
and Microsoft; the same brilliant and cunning CEO that helped his
company become the powerhouse in the industry and will do anything
to ensure that it stays there.
The government was correct in its intentions, but the language
in which the proposal was written does nothing to alleviate
Microsoft's grasp of market. In fact, this slap on the wrist by the
government and the generous donations by Microsoft to needy
education systems only help make its future more promising. The
supposedly altruistic donations by Microsoft are in response to
consumer class-action lawsuits. But, by donating refurbished
equipment to poor school systems, Microsoft will enhance its
competitive advantage in schools while doing little to meet their
true extensive needs. Apple further argued that this would extend
Microsoft's monopoly power, the problem that prompted the lawsuits
in the first place.
Because of the nature of the subject, technology, control over
the industry has a history of changing hands. Microsoft was an
exception. They were able to maintain their power through natural
barriers of entry and exclusionary acts. Although they have already
been found guilty of this and their future actions will be watched
closely, the damage is already done. Software companies prefer to
produce programs for an operating system like Windows that is
already established. Gate's timing was impeccable and as a result
Microsoft will reap the benefits far into the future. As it is
commonplace in this industry for any one company to have the
majority of control at any given time, why not just let Microsoft
enjoy its time at the top? First off and most importantly, the
actions by Microsoft made consumers worse off. Secondly, there is a
utilitarian way to handle this situation that will make everyone
better off. Finally, the way in which they maintained this power is
illegal.
Because of the government's inability to enforce the remedies,
harsher remedies are needed in order to restore competition. A
mandatory licensing of Microsoft's operating system technology would
prove an ideal solution to this problem. More specifically,
competitors such as Novel or IBM can bid and obtain a license from
Microsoft. Using Microsoft's technology, they could add to and
create a completely new system. For example, IBM could market
Windows XP under their own trade name by obtaining a license and
paying maybe 5% to Microsoft. This license fee needs to be set ahead
of time so that there are no allegations of discriminatory actions.
By doing this, Microsoft could remain at the top, but it now gives
other companies a chance to survive and compete. As companies use
Microsoft's technology they will gain support and Microsoft's market
share will decrease. Since control over the market is directly
related to the ability to control prices or exclude competition,
Microsoft will not be able to engage in anticompetitive acts. As
Microsoft's power over the market decreases, they will gain the
additional license fee for the use of it's operating system. The
natural barriers of entry will subside as other companies begin to
gain popularity and consumers and producers spread out.
This idea has a few very beneficial effects. First, it avoids a
potential breakup by Microsoft. There is no need to break up the
company's assets and destroy the very thing that makes Microsoft so
unique. Although the proposed breakup of Microsoft would allow for
more competition, a licensing agreement has the same effects without
the disruptions. In other words, it levels the playing field without
the costs. Second, Microsoft's software producers and engineers are
not restricted from continuing to make new programs. Therefore, as
Microsoft continues to develop new systems, other companies will use
this to develop their own and both will excel. Overall, everyone is
better off and consumers will see an increase in the quality of
products available.
So why is this a better idea than the one proposed by the
government? First, it addresses and eliminates the main problem,
Microsoft's hold on the market for all Intel-compatible PC operating
systems. In addition, there is no vague language in which Mr. Gates
could cleverly bypass. Finally, there is no need for a committee or
donations or any of the other things that make this case more
complicated than it needs to be.
The only issue that could be brought against this idea is the
possibility that another company could design a more productive
operating system. Companies would then compete fiercely for that top
spot. This is analogous to the video game industry in which every
couple of years Nintendo, Sony, and few other major manufacturers
release their respective systems within a couple of weeks of each
other. This competition pushes them to produce better products and
therefore enhances the well being of the consumers. This is exactly
the goal of the licensing agreement with Microsoft.
While Microsoft has already settled this case with the Justice
Department, its problems are not over. Or are they? Microsoft is
still under investigation by the European Commission for failing to
disclose information to its competitors concerning operating systems
for personal computers and servers and that it engaged in the
discriminatory licensing of its technology. All of these problems
would be taken care of if the government would adopt an overall
licensing agreement. This would allow all information to be
available for a fee and charge the same prices to everyone. As has
been shown, the current remedies proposed for Microsoft are not
efficient and will not end the long-standing problem. If the
government considers the possibility of a licensing agreement they
would realize that this is a much better solution.
MTC-00009070
From: George J Jorgenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Comments
Dear US Justice Department,
I do not believe the remedies reported in the news are going to
have the slightest impact on Microsoft's predatory marketing
practices, and subsequent illegal abuse of monopoly power. Take, for
one small example, the case that started it all: internet browsers.
Since the time the case started, Microsoft bundled their browser for
free, and essentially drove all other browsers out of the market.
They claim they have a right to do this, and that they are only
serving consumer needs.
But their most recent versions--including ALL browsers shipped
with the new Windows XP--have made a significant change: they no
longer support industry-standard third-party browser plug-ins for
presenting specialized content, such as movies, sound, animation,
and virtual reality. This means that third-party content providers,
such as Real Audio, Macromedia Flash, Adobe PDF, and Apple
QuickTime--just to name a few of the larger players--no longer
function under Microsoft's browsers using the standard installation
procedure. Instead, they must provide special installations that go
through an additional layer of software--Active X--that Microsoft's
own content provisioning software does not go through. This means
that ordinary consumers will have to struggle needlessly to install
third-party content provisioning software, but perhaps more
importantly, if they do actually get through that struggle, the
third-party plug-ins will run more slowly and with less capability
than will Microsoft's own content provisioning software.
This also means that some 90% of new computers sold cannot
properly access my web site, which has Apple QuickTime content,
whereas 90% of pre-Windows XP computers could. With this move, done
right under your collective noses while you negotiated a cushy
``hand slap'' settlement, Microsoft not only successfully extended
their operating system monopoly into the internet browser market,
but now they have extended their browser monopoly into the content
provider marketplace! They have
[[Page 25108]]
broken the law once, and while being penalized, have broken it
again.
Take heed of my prediction: now that Microsoft controls content
provisioning, content will come next. Within three years, the
average consumer with an ``out of the box'' computer will be unable
to view any content that Microsoft has not provided. With all due
respect, the Ashcroft Justice Department is asleep at the wheel on
this one. Quit meddling with ``states' rights'' Oregon and
California, and concentrate on appropriately punishing large, multi-
national companies who are already convicted of breaking laws.
Sincerely,
George Jorgenson
A Concerned Citizen
MTC-00009071
From: Bob Harkness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
Please include this in public comment regarding the Microsoft
antitrust settlement. I have worked developing software for 30 years
so I have seen monopolistic pricing at work in the information
technology industry. From a consumer's point of view, Microsoft
provides a good value and definitely is not practicing monopolistic
pricing. Oracle is a good comparison because they have been one of
the loudest complainers about Microsoft, and their database product
is directly comparable to Microsoft's SQL Server. The total cost of
ownership on a per seat basis is much less for the Microsoft
product. Oracle's database caters to the mid to high-end market.
Microsoft's SQL Server will work effectively for small to upper mid
market applications. Consumers have been well served by the
competition.
On the other hand, Microsoft is an overly aggressive competitor.
I consider some of their business practices unethical at best and
obviously illegal is some cases. I don't want to see Microsoft run
everyone else out of the business. But, I don't want the government
to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Bottom line: I think
the agreement that the federal government and Microsoft has reached
is as good as we can expect. The sooner this is resolved the better
it will be for the economy.
Bob Harkness
9221 NE 24th St.
Bellevue, WA 98004
425-450-9340
MTC-00009072
From: Eileen J. Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
ENOUGH WITH THIS WAR ON MICROSOFT! I FEEL THIS MICROSOFT HAS
DONE A GREAT SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND DOESN'T DESERVE THE
TREATMENT IT IS GETTING FROM OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. OUR COURTS
SHOULD NOT BE MANIPULATED BY JEALOUS COMPETITORS.
THIS COUNTRY HAS A LOT MORE TO WORRY ABOUT AT THIS TIME. OUR
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE CONCENTRATING ALL THEIR EFFORTS ON
CATCHING AND PROSECUTING TERRORISTS INSTEAD OF TEARING APART ONE OF
OUR MOST PRESTIGIOUS COMPANYS.
EILEEN AND ARTHUR PALUMBO
159 NORTH GRANT AVENUE
COLONIA, NJ 07067
MTC-00009073
From: Sean OToole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: US Dept of Justice.
As a concerned citizen and tax payer I urge you to put the
Microsoft case to rest. It may have been a nice idea for the Federal
Government and State Governments to sue Microsoft when the economy
was soaring and the states saw dollar signs....those days are gone.
I understand that a few high level government officials are looking
for private sector jobs and like to make a name for themselves while
they have the unlimited budget of the taxpayer. If we continue to
allow a few lawyers seek name recognition at the expense of the
corporation we will destroy our free economy. The governments job
should be to protect the greater public interest and allow Americans
to pursue their own happiness. It has been made very clear in this
case that Microsoft has not damaged the consumer or the public's
interest. I appreciate all our government does. Americans truly are
fortunate to live here and I am grateful for the Department of
Justice and the people who serve there.
In this matter I think we should let the free market solve the
competitive issues.
Thank you.
SEAN OTOOLE
MTC-00009074
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not delay the implementation of the Microsoft
settlement which is in the best interests of our economy. Also I
urge the federal officials to use whatever efforts they can muster
to convince the remaining rouge states to accept the settlement.
H. Rush Spedden
MTC-00009075
From: Mary E Jouver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:39pm
Subject: We have more important issues at hand.
Leave Microsoft the way it is and We have more important issues
at hand. Leave Microsoft the way it is and let us get on to rebuild
our country. Microsoft has done a tremendous job of helping to built
the technological ability of the USA and it continues to do so.
Mary Jouver
17821 90th Ave E.
Puyallup WA 98375
MTC-00009076
From: CHARYL L PEFFER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is fair, lets get on with improving our country
and quiet fighting between each other, we all need to work together,
all companys, not just Microsoft.. CHARYL PEFFER
MTC-00009077
From: SHED
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Vs. DOJ
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
I am part of the BeOS community trying to get the BeOS
or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope of
success if the following issues aren't addressed:
--(a) No penalty for OEM's retailing computers with non-Microsoft
operating systems
--(b) Possible incentives provided by Microsoft or government
subsidies paid from the Microsoft settlement to software publishers
(with proof to claims of damage from the unfair business practices
used by Microsoft) developing for small or ``Alternative'' operating
systems or the furthering of small or ``Alternative'' operating
systems hindered by the unfair business tactics used by Microsoft
--(C) The Microsoft Software development division made to develop
for all relevant ``Alternative'' operating systems. I.E. Games,
Productive suits, Internet browsers & other core Microsoft services
& software brought to the ``Alternative'' market
--(d) Specific awareness campaign for small or ``Alternative''
operating systems damaged by the unfair business practices used by
Microsoft funded from monetary fines from the Microsoft vs. DOJ
settlement As in points (b) & (d) there must be an awareness raised
in the public eye that there are alternatives in this market & a
message to software publishers & developers that there are other
platforms with viable profit capabilities if they bring their
product to market on these small or ``Alternative'' operating
systems I thank you for your time & would greatly appreciate
recognition for the damage done by unfair business practices used by
Microsoft & in restoring a level playing field for growth &
prosperity in the computer operating system & software market.
SHED
(BeOS community member)
MTC-00009078
From: a(u)bfrench
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:16pm
Subject: comment on MS settlement
I think the case has gone on long enough and should be settled.
As an ordinary average citizen and novice computer user, I have to
wonder if this case was more about using the courts to help
Microsoft competitors put Microsft out of business than of justice.
If it weren't for Microsoft products designed the way they are, I
would not be able to use a computer. Microsoft is a great American
company which contributes to the economic health of the USA.
[[Page 25109]]
Arlene French
MTC-00009079
From: arthur anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel this settlement is fair and
reasonable, and I am pleased to see it resolved. The settlement they
came up with was arrived at after extensive negotiations with a
court-appointed mediator. It hands out new rights to computer
manufacturers to configure systems with access to various Windows
features. It also requires Windows to make it easier to install non-
Microsoft software, and to disclose information about certain
internal interfaces in Windows. This settlement is a step towards
improving our economy. Thank you for making the right decision.
Sincerely,
Arthur W. Anderson
30 NE Sunrise Drive
Waukee, IA 50263
[email protected]
MTC-00009080
From: Rhonda Christensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:45pm
Subject: U.S. vs Microsoft
As a university educator and researcher I have, over the past
few years, been more than annoyed by the persistence of Microsoft to
force the use of Internet Explorer. Even files that were not created
in a browser suddenly ``become'' Explorer files when emailed to
colleagues and will only open in Explorer. A great deal of my time
has been wasted due to their unethical methods of forcing people to
use their products.
I ask that you consider the future of the use of the Internet
which is becoming ubiquitous. We should be able to choose the
browser we prefer to use rather than being forced to use one that
Microsoft has selected. I teach on both the Mac and Windows
platform. Most of my headaches come from the Windows network. If I
have a choice, I always choose Mac. Don't take away our choices.
Rhonda Christensen
Rhonda W. Christensen, Ph.D.
University of North Texas
Email: [email protected]
http://courseweb.tac.unt.edu/rhondac
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009081
From: Greg Heuer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:49pm
Subject: Fair Consideration of the Microsoft Offer
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Having operated computers since the 1980s, and having
experienced the benefits first hand, I urge you to give serious
consideration to the self serving remedy proposed by MS, i.e. the
wholesale distribution of MS hardware and software to our nation's
youth. The national trade association for which I work is a prime
example of advantages of an **open shop** approach to computer and
office automation solutions.
We operate BOTH MS and Macintosh platforms side-by-side without
difficulty. This empowers our creative team to use the platform best
suited to the task, most usually Macintosh. I strongly recommend an
even handed and equitable remedy which serves as a REAL penalty to
the MS way of doing business while offering the benefits of computer
learning to our youth. The Macintosh is the computer of choice for
the future.
Greg Heuer, Director
Member Services AWI
Architectural Woodwork Institute
PO Box 291
Nellysford, Virginia 22958
[email protected]
http://www.awinet.org
MTC-00009082
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Why is it that at social gatherings that don't have employees
from MS competitors, one never really hears people talking about how
badly MS is screwing us? Why aren't people of computer age rioting
in the streets as they've done at WTO meetings complaining of the
screwing and overpricing they're suffering from MS? You hear more
complaints about what the telephone companies are doing than what MS
has done.
Isn't the US a democracy? There are a few companies without the
skills of MS who are dictating Govt. Policy towards the Tech
Industry as well as 9 AG's from states housing MS competitors who
are making mountains out of specs of dust. Without MS's contribution
to the computer industry how would the Govt. and private industry
and the Armed Forces function? Like perhaps Bolivia? If taken to a
vote, how many people would really want govt. aid in fighting such a
tyrant? One-tenth of a tenth of 1% the population? Is MS an angel,
hell no! Is GE, EXXON, GM, Boeing or the Post Office? Try breaking
them up and living without them.
Stop this silliness and also job security for the AG's of the
remaining Nine ``holdout'' States and settle this waste of tax
payers dollars right now in MS's favor. Innovation has been put on
hold and billions of dollars lost due to this law suit. Stop this
law suit now and accept MS's settlement offers and find some other
area to fight......like the medical industry and their competitive
pricing policies. Big discounts to the insurance companies and none
to the person without insurance. ( I'm thankful for the discounts
but it doesn't add up ). This law suit is about on the same level as
the impeachment proceedings against Clinton. They were/are both a
joke, and I'm a Republican.
Robin Poole
18998 Marine View Circle
Seattle, Washington
aka [email protected]
MTC-00009083
From: E Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In all honesty I'm sorry this whole situation transpired to
begin with. The leaps and bounds that Microsoft has made for the
entire computer industry I don't believe would of happened without
them. The windows OS changed the world.
I believe the settlement is too severe and I hope they can still
operate at just leap and bounds under it.
Ellen Miller
MTC-00009084
From: ANTHONY J DURAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Prosecute and punish lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the
law. How is it giving the Micrsoft corporation inroads into the only
market they do not totally dominate is to be construed somehow as
punishment? Renegotiate this JOKE of a settlement.
It's that simple. Microsoft has, will, and plans to in the
future continue crossing the legal limits of acceptable behavior and
activity with respect to laws controlling business and commerce.
Please add my names to the list of those who feel the USDOJ
settlement is completely unsatisfactory and inadequate in relation
to the crimes committed by Microsoft.
Feel free to contact me about these matters and or confirm/
authenticate this e-mail.
Yours truly,
Anthony J. Duran
214 e dayton
fresno,ca 93704
MTC-00009085
From: Andrew Bachmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm writing in regards to the Microsoft Settlement. I have been
watching the case over the years. As a computer consumer it has been
sad to watch Microsoft continue to use it's influence to force
hardware sellers to bundle their products with new computers. In
particular, their use of the bootloader clause to force out other
alternatives for me, such as the BeOS operating system.
As you may or may not be aware, recently Be, Inc., has been in
process of dissolving after selling their intellectual property to
Palm, Inc. The constraints that Microsoft has placed on the hardware
sellers such as Dell, Compaq, etc. made it so that I couldn't buy a
new computer with BeOS installed. Instead I could only buy a machine
with Windows on it.
Now that Palm owns the BeOS there are many of us trying to
encourage them to keep providing it and developing it. However, as
Be, Inc., was effectively shutdown by Microsoft's tactics, it is not
very appealing for Palm to try to continue with the BeOS under the
present conditions. So, when I get my new machine I will not be able
to get a new version of BeOS for it. Also because of this the
software makers who have made software for BeOS in the past are no
longer continuing. So I have no software choice for my operating
system.
[[Page 25110]]
I have heard that Microsoft is trying to make a settlement where
they provide computers to schools. All these computers are to be
installed with Microsoft software. It seems to me that this is not a
penalty at all, but rather a way for Microsoft to insinuate usage of
Microsoft into the youth. Because the students would only be exposed
to Microsoft software they would not have knowledge of alternatives
that might exist, and those alternatives would die away.
I think a more appropriate remedy would be for Microsoft to pay
reparations to Be, Inc., and Be, Inc., shareholders. Also if they
provide computers to schools, these computers should not be
installed with Microsoft software. They should be provided with BeOS
or some other operating system installed. And of course they have to
allow for computer manufacturers to provide these options to
consumers like myself. Then when I buy a computer I can have the
choice of another operating system, which can be more stable and
faster than Windows. Since the beginning of this case I have been
glad to see the Justice Department acting in the interests of the
computing consumers. Please continue to press for a just remedy to
Microsoft's crimes against the consumer.
Thanks for your time.
Andrew Bachmann
MTC-00009086
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:11pm
Subject: MS Settlement
Let get on with our lives. I would encourage all states to
settle their cases with Microsoft and quit spending taxpayer money
on their own ``t more for the consumer.'' The consumer will not see
any of the money directly anyway, so who cares. If they don't want
to settle, take their current Microsoft OS away from them and let
them find some other operating system instead. I don not under stand
their thinking, whom do they think they are helping? The public or
themselves?
Thanks for listening.
Carld
MTC-00009087
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I feel the decision regarding this settlement is fair and just.
It is about time we move on and stop wasting taxpayers monies.
Ilia Patlidzanov
MTC-00009088
From: Jim (038) Wanda Dahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Dear Sirs:
We are writing in support of the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft legal case. We are aware that the appellate court has
deemed Microsoft to be a monopoly. It seems to us that if this is
true, it is because their competitors were unable to compete in the
marketplace as the Microsoft products were superior, so that they
dropped out of the competition, leaving Microsoft ``only man left
standing'', ergo, a ``monopoly''.
It is also our understanding that a monopolist should be
punished if it has harmed consumers. We have purchased many of
Microsoft's software products, and have been delighted and amazed by
the features they contain, and certainly do not feel we have been
overcharged for any of them. We recently purchased a new computer,
in part because we wanted to upgrade to the new Windows XP product,
which has indeed been a major improvement over our previous Windows
98 software.
Rather than being prosecuted in the courts, to some considerable
extent on the behest of their bested competitors, we feel Microsoft
should be acclaimed for its contribution to the facilitation of the
development of the worldwide net by developing products which by
their wide acceptance have provided a common ``language'' for use
between computer users, rather than a ``babel-like'' situation which
could have evolved if many competing ``languages'' were equally
prevalent. Perhaps Microsoft should receive a Nobel prize in some
category. In any event, we feel Microsoft should be punished as
little as possible.
Sincerely,
James R. Dahl
Wanda K. Dahl
MTC-00009089
From: Joseph Pellitteri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:19pm
Subject: Resolve this settlement
Resolve the Microsoft situation NOW. Four years is to long even
for the Federal Gov. Lets get on with life.The economy needs a jump
start.
Talk to you later.
Joe
MTC-00009091
From: Manfred Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:25pm
Subject: Hands Off
I respectfully submit that the real injustice is the persecution
of business under the Anti-trust ``laws'' that are so convoluted
that no business man is safe from their use by any petty government
official that has a political agenda or statist ideology.
Hands off Microsoft! Hands off Business!
Manfred Smith
The Learning Community ? TLCN.org
Maryland Home Education Assn. ? MHEA.com
Columbia, MD 21045
410-730-0073
``There is no safety for honest men except by believing all
possible evil of evil men.''
Edmund Burke
Remember September 11 !
MTC-00009092
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I work in the entertainment industry as both an employer and a
creator. I and my partners have been responsible for producing the
Television Anthology Science Fiction series, ``The Outer Limits''
for seven seasons. Therefore, I have lived full time as a
``Futurist'', creating and delivering morality tales frequently
using technology and human nature. On both sides of the camera.
It is quite clear to me that mankind is involved in the most
extraordinary tsunami of change. Technology, in almost every field
of life and commerce, is evolving faster than any individual can
knowledgeably fathom... It is rather unnerving to consider that none
of us can know where man is going. We can clone, compute, bio-
change, write with atoms... slow down the speed of light and soon
assemble the very building blocks of matter to make new atomic
forms. What does this have to do with Microsoft?
The one unswerving guide to our survival as a specie has to be
morality. A human compass in a vast storm of change. Only
morality... justice, the balance of ethics above greed and power
will navigate us through the unknown in years to come. Simply put...
when we allow one law breaker who has assembled a massive
technological power grip on the global market through illegal and
immoral means to get away with a less than equal punishment. (Which,
as a follower of computer technology, I feel the DOJ settlement
does.) You may open Pandora's box.
We say to those that follow in new technologies... prey on us.
We don't have the will to stand up to you. Microsoft has
transgressed. Make them pay the price... do not send a signal that
mankind no longer values itself, and is fair game to any who amass
power through technology. As they surely will in the future and the
consequences may be far more awful.
Very sincerely, very concerned.
Pen Densham
Father, Husband... Human.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009093
From: Peggy Fitzgerald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft case
Hello--I think the Microsoft judgement was fair, and I do not
believe it is in the best interests of the American public to spend
more time trying this case. The landscape of the computing industry
moves too quickly and the issues surrounding the original case are
no longer valid.
MTC-00009094
From: Bobby Sadin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
An open letter to the Department of Justice regarding the ongoing
Microsoft anti-trust case:
To Whom It May Concern,
I have followed the Microsoft vs. the US Government anti-trust
case since it's inception, and hope you will do everything in your
power to bring it to a swift conclusion. The value of Microsoft to
this country cannot simply be viewed as one did the steel or
telephony industries in the past. They were local engines for growth
in the US
[[Page 25111]]
economy. Today Microsoft, along with IBM, Intel, and a small handful
of other technology companies, have become the centers for a
uniquely global intellectual economy which leads the world in
everything from personal computing, to satellite communications.
They are the global engines of the information economy. And they are
the envy of the world.
Crippling any of these companies, as the DOJ, and several
State's Attorneys Generals have tried to do on behalf of Microsoft's
most vocal competitors, is the moral equivalent of shutting down the
most successful US steel producer at the height of WWII. With the
events of September 11th, a faltering economy (yes, we're in a
recession!), and soaring unemployment in this country, the US
Government needs to ensure the best and brightest companies are able
to grow and flourish, not attack them.
In the face of an uncertain future for all of us due to
international terrorism, we need to encourage growth in our
technology infrastructure, and our economy--which means ending the
prosecution of what is arguably the most successful technology
provider in the world, Microsoft.
In a rapidly changing world where the US economy is increasingly
challenged by Europe's and Asia's in areas like airline building,
telephony, steel, and in growing measure, compute software, I ask
you, members of our government--my government--to resolve the
Microsoft case so they can back to what they do best, creating great
software that people love to use.
Thank you for your attention, and God Bless America!
Sincerely,
Robert G. Sadin
15923 Manion Way NE
Duvall, WA 98019
MTC-00009095
From: Aubrey Brewster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
I think the microsoft settlement is Fair let it stand.
Thanks Aubrey Brewster
MTC-00009096
From: Satchmoz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success as long as microsoft continues its monopoly. Microsoft
contually only supports their standards opting not to use any
existing standards within the PC industry, instead they push their
own formats as the only option on the Windows OS. They literally
sell and inferior product compard to many other OS, but can destroy
there competetion through sheer business power, due to the size of
their monopoly. BeOS is just one of many casulties. IBM was hurt
many years ago when they tried to create an operating system to
compete with windows known as OS/2. All of their business practices
are designed to elliminate competition. The proposed ``penalty'' on
microsoft is nowhere near strong enough. Nor will breaking up the
company help. Most people in the technical world i have spoken to
agree that many things need to be done to stop the damage microsoft
is causing to free enterprise. This includes but is not limited to:
open Office file formats
open Win32 APIs
make dual-booting other OS's (such as BeOS) mandatory on OEM
licenses.
MTC-00009097
From: Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I am an avid Be OS* user. I have also used every version of
Microsoft Windows starting with version 3.0. I would like to offer
some suggestions as to what should be done with Microsoft.
First, it is important that Microsoft be forced to release all
of their APIs, such as DirectX, so that compatible system can be
made that will allow Windows-based games and programs to run on
other platforms.
Second, I believe it would be in the best interest of everyone
if restrictions were extended for more than 5 measly years. Five
years will not be long enough to allow comparable competing
operating systems to develop and reach market.
Third, disallowing Microsoft to enter any mergers for the next 5
to 10 years would prevent them from hiding their monopolistic nature
behind seemingly innocent agreements.
Finally, Microsoft must not be allowed to integrate ANY
application with any of their operating system products. It is
denying the consumer freedom of choice while using their computers,
because they are unable to easily remove the integrated software.
Also,, a point that must be made is that integrated software just
adds more code that will add more bugs and degrade the value of the
product, regardless of how helpfull Microsoft will put it off to be.
In conclusion, I hope that y'all will find my suggestions
helpfull. Being a computer technician and avid alt-OS (non MS
operating systems) user, I feel that I should do all that I can to
aid the legal actions against Microsoft.
* Be OS was created by the soon-to-be defunct Be, INC. Their
destruction is obviously at the hands of Microsoft. Be, INC had
deals in the works with various computer makers to ship Be OS in a
dual-boot setup with all/most/some of their machines. Microsoft's
previous agreements with these companies forbade them from allowing
anything other than Windows to boot the machine, meaning that not
even a boot-menu would be allowed. *
-Joseph D. Groover, JR
[email protected]
MTC-00009098
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft punishment?
Dear Sirs:
I am a retired educator and do not feel that having Microsoft
give copies of its software to schools is a punishment. Since they
have been found guilty, they should suffer not profit from their
wrongdoing. Please listen to the public before making a final
ruling.
Donna Yarborough
340 N. Suber Rd.
Greer, SC 29651
864-877-9362
MTC-00009099
From: michael(u)14110
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:06pm
Subject: partasan mess
A herd of lawers making a bundle of money at the expense of our
countrys future. The Clinton era is over, lets get real folks. Back
off, and let our businesses be successful. We don't have many left
in this country.
I am beyond disgust.
Michael F Clark
Washington State
MTC-00009100
From: Brian McDevitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I was unable to find information on the penalties, so I am
relying on newspaper articles that I have written in the past.
I am happy that the DOJ and Microsoft are settling the case and
moving on. As a user, I expect easy to use and reliable software;
software that works together. Breaking up Microsoft or imposing
other draconian measures would just help competitors, not users.
As part of the penalty phase, do not allow Microsoft to give out
free or reduced cost software to the education market or any other
market that another OS has a strong market share. I can't think of a
penalty that would benefit Microsoft greater. Require Microsoft to
discount upgrade products to ``current'' users, not a market that
Apple or another company competes in nicely.
I use a MS OS, MS applications, and am a small Microsoft
stockholder.
Sincerely,
Brian T. McDevitt
[email protected]
1846 Bangor Lane
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
MTC-00009101
From: Robert Ardill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft maintaining monopoly position
I would like to add comment to the Microsoft case . Microsoft's
settlement proposal of free distribution of computers and software
to schools etc, is an obvious situation of further maintaining the
monopoly, which is the direct opposite effect to the original
decision.
I understand that Microsoft Corporation was found guilty at
trial of having maintained an illegal operating system monopoly and
of having illegally tied its
[[Page 25112]]
Internet Explorer to its monopoly operating system. When Microsoft
appealed, the appellate court threw out the guilty verdict as
pertains to the browser but said yes, Microsoft did in fact
illegally maintain an operating system monopoly. (The word
``maintain'' is critical here. It is not illegal to have an
operating system monopoly, but it is illegal to do anything to keep
that monopoly--to maintain it.)
This proposed settlement, would grant Microsoft its operating
system monopoly--indeed, contains wording such that it would no
longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain that monopoly--while
saying that if Microsoft wants to, it can make it easier for people
to write Windows applications, but it's by no means required to do
so. In short, the settlement is ill-advised and does not maintain
the law at all. To truly enhance competition in the US and in the
world markets, (that other computer operating systems marketers
including Microsoft export to), the comments following are helpful.
``The most successful competitors in recent years in product
markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto monopoly (eg.
personal computer operating systems, Internet browsers, and office
productivity software) have arisen from the open source software
community, and it is of extreme importance that any settlement
protect and enhance this community's ability to produce products
that provide end-users with viable choices.
In addition, I believe that maintaining the monopoly of one main
operating system, like Microsoft,( US and worldwide) will make it
easier for terrorist activity, rather than a diversified market of
operating systems worldwide.
Cheers
Robert
Robert Ardill
MTC-00009102
From: Tim O'Hare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
Even though I reside in Australia I am deeply concerned about
the effects of the Microsoft settlement currently taking place.
I am concerned that our choice is been severely limited by
Microsoft and it's anti-competitive behaviour. Two examples of this
are the current X-Box product being sold by Microsoft and the
current .Net proposition being put forward by Microsoft. They have
the ability to throw massive resources at whatever stands in their
way, as shown by when they were threatened by Netscape and the
Navigator Browser. It is becoming clear that they will have a major
impact in the gamming console market and if their dream comes true,
all online commerce will be effected by .Net. I can only see this
path developing and evolving--will we all be driving cars made by
Microsoft in the future?
I am not an anti-Microsoft zealot, the company has unified the
computer industry over the last two decades and provided a means for
many people to access a computer who could not have done so
otherwise. I use their products everyday.
I just wish for some regulation to provide efficient and
stimulating competition.
Instead of braking the company up (I think this isn't going to
happen now?) or some other method of paring Microsoft down, my
suggestions would be to make the external interfaces of their
software open and allow anyone to write software which can connect
to Microsoft software. This is analogous to a third party muffler
manufacturer having the dimensions so that they can connect their
muffler to a Ford engine. This way Microsoft can still make the
Office suite and if it is still the best product available, they
will make profits from it but if another product is better then this
means Microsoft cannot cut them out of the market by changing the
format of the files.
Some of the things I would like to see be made open and
documented are their file system, the Office suite file layout and
API and the Win32 API.
The other thing I see necessary is to make sure OEM's can pre-
configure computers to have a dual boot option or to load any
operating system without significant penalty. This makes sure that
Microsoft allows OEM's to put other operating systems on computers
besides Windows.
If Microsoft continues to make the best product and the one most
closely aligned to what the user wants, then they should have
nothing to fear.
Regards,
Tim O'Hare
Software Engineer
[email protected]
Platypus Technology Australia Pty Ltd
Level 4, 1 Atchison Street
St Leonards NSW 2065
Ph: +61 2 8436 8500
Direct: +61 2 8436 8517
Fax: +61 2 8436 8501
www.platypus.net
MTC-00009103
From: jim kuska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I believe the settlement that has been agreed to by a number of
the states is what should be followed by all the states still trying
to modify the settlement. It is time to put a stop to more
litigation. To continue to litigate just wastes time and money fof
all concerned parties.
Lets put this case behind us and let us move forward.
James J. Kuska
1096 Randall Flat Road
Moscow, Idaho 83843
MTC-00009104
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:20pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft alone already!
Hello,
I think its time the Government moves onto other issues of much
greater importance. Leave Microsoft alone. Its a great company. They
run a great business and the cost of software has never been so
inexpensive not to mention as powerful.
History has shown that every time the government breaks up a
great company it falls apart. The railroads in this country are
mess. Try to get a proposal to move freight it takes weeks and even
longer once the freight moves. Breaking up AT&T. What a mess.
I now get multiple phone bills and the cost has never been
higher and in the near future, its a shame to say that there
probably won't be an AT&T. Please don't do us anymore favors. Let
Microsoft continue as the Microsoft it is.
If our Justice Department needs work maybe they should be
looking into Enron and what effect they had on manipulating the
market and driving up prices a year ago. Also, investigate why the
management of the company was selling their stock while being on TV
contending the stock was undervalued.
Microsoft is only helping and protecting the consumers and all
their shareholder.
Sincerely,
D.J.F.
MTC-00009105
From: C Eguia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:18pm
Subject: Continued Microsoft violations?
It appears that Microsoft is continuing to ignore the spirit of
the ruling by the judicial branch.
Isn't the Microsoft XP operating system just another rush to get
business & private customers more dependant on MS with their
Passport & .Net technology that is already making private
information available to local crackers and those abroad due to the
numerous bugs in the MS software*. Users would also be required to
checkin with MS systematically when hardware devices are added or
changed on a computer? (It is expected that it would also be needed
whenever a person had to reformat their harddrive.) This continual
interaction with the monopoly would also provide the company with
hardware (and software) data without the user's knowledge and this
information could be made available to advertisers for a price as
well.
It appears that the DOJ is providing Microsoft with the
capability to extend it monopoly by not adding their recent inroads
into the audio, video & photography player software market by
including their own software in their operating system and making
them the default players. Also, by not providing the code to
competitors, Microsoft makes it more difficult for them to provide
more compatible and secure software. Even with this handicap,
competing software is typically better and more bug-proof than
Microsoft's.
Is Microsoft still being allowed to change the various standards
on the internet with Internet Explorer (XML) functions so they can
further extend their monopoly? Is MS being allowed to make their
internet portal the default in Internet Explorer thus allowing them
to make more money on advertising?
I have read that the proposed ruling, as a *punishment*, allows
Microsoft to provide their software (and their OLD hardware) to the
schools and facilitates them to extend their monopoly in the
educational market. Is this true? If so, doesn't that make our
[[Page 25113]]
government a party to the monopolistic practices that MS continues
to practice? Would requiring them to provide the money for software
(and new hardware without an operating system) to the schools be a
better solution and punishment?
The next thing to review is the contracts Microsoft has with PC
vendors. I've tried to buy a computer with various companies without
a MS operating system (OS) and they refuse to reduce the cost of the
software from the price of the PC or to even send the PC without an
OS. It has been rumored that MS would refund the money if the OS
software was returned with the shrinkwrap intact but that refunds
seldom occurred.
Thank you, Candelario Eguia
Palmdale, CA 93551
Reference: ``*Microsoft's direct connection to the customer*
Once, the software group's MSN was a news and information
website. Now it is much more than that, writes Fiona Harvey
Published: December 30 2001 17:54 Last Updated:
December 30 2001 22:03
MTC-00009106
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please allow Microsoft the maximum opportunity to innovate new
products without hinderance. Don't kill the goose that laid the
golden egg for the US economy in the 1990s. Do you think we need two
Enron's? The US government could use Microsoft's help on many
fronts. Work together as a team. Do us (US) proud.
MTC-00009107
From: Jerry Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:29pm
Subject: i have faxed this letter to ashcroft and thurmond and to
msft
21 Edgewater Alley
Isle of Palms, South Carolina 29451
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to voice my opinion concerning the Microsoft
antitrust case that was recently settled with a strong and binding
settlement. I urge you to please stop any further Federal government
intervention beyond this settlement. There have already been
settlements reached between various states and Microsoft, all of
which involved mediators and a great deal of negotiation. The
settlement forces Microsoft to document and disclose for use by its
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows'
operating system products--a first in an antitrust settlement.
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or hardware
developers who develop or promote software that competes with
Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
I am retired, but have previously been involved in ``big
business.'' I see the hardships Microsoft is facing on the side of a
businessman and an everyday computer user. It seems to me that this
drawn-out lawsuit has become a victim of politics and money lust.
Microsoft has contributed much to this country, creating jobs,
bringing technology and donating a great deal of products to schools
and other charities.
Don't allow our economy to drift further into recession. Please
allow Microsoft to get back on their feet again.
Sincerely,
Jerry Martin
cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
MTC-00009108
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:36pm
Subject: settlement
as a user of microsoft products I am in agreement that the
settlement should be approved so that we can put this episode behind
us and go forward with normal business.
[email protected] (R.Grubin)
MTC-00009109
From: Mahlon Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 9:51pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
As a person who works in a school district, i resent the
implication that Microsoft's ``volunteering'' to donate equipment
and software to needy schools is a step toward resolving the suit
against Microsoft. Schools are so desperate for any kind of
technology in many cases that they would be happy to have the
workstations and software; however, the point is slowing down a
monster of a company's monopoly, not helping schools. The very act
of donating the equipment and software further entrenches Microsoft
technology in schools, as well as helping to build a future consumer
base. It isn't too big a reach to liken this to the tobacco
industry's shameless attempts to addict as many young people to
cigarettes as possible.
Not that it matters, but as a Mac user, this has gone on so long
that I am sick of it. Big money wins every time. To say otherwise,
unless you break this company up and force it to open source it's
code, as the Mac has done with system X, is to ask for a monopoly to
grow rather than to reduce it. People want a choice, rather than
being forced to use a product that is bug prone, security weak, and
over priced.
Mahlon Tate
Instructional Technology Specialist
3150 McCart, Suite 16
Fort Worth, TX 76110
Office phone: 817-207-6796
Fax: 817-922-6967
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00009110
From: Sylvia J Trepp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement for Microsoft is in the public
interest. Please consider this in your decision. Special interests
should not be alowed to derail the settlement and prolong the
litigation.
Sincerely, Sylvia Trepp
515 Lake St. S., # 301
Kirkland, WA 98033
MTC-00009111
From: Tony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Request that the lawsuit against Microsoft be ended without
delay. In view of the facts that anti-trust law is non-objective and
is used against business men and women in a gangster type
environment, we request that this activity end now. We do not want
government dictating what we can not include in our software. We
want the free economy to decide.
Anthony A. Nelson
25862 Jasper Rd. Suite 43
Barstow, CA 92311-7204
PayPal: [email protected]
MTC-00009112
From: Paul J Denuel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:37pm
Subject: misomes
We need to continue the direction mandated by the courts to save
free enterprise. pjd
MTC-00009113
From: Jenny (038) Andy Firth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is good for me & the
industry.
Regards,
Jenny Firth
MTC-00009114
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think that it should be put to rest. This should be settled
once and for all. I also don't think that Microsoft should be broken
up. I am a stockholder and wish the company to remain successful in
the years to come and I think we should be focusing on more
important things right now; like national security.
MTC-00009115
From: RICHARD BEDOLLA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the subject matter. Let's support the general
public by showing the true colors of our leadership. God Bless
America.
Richard Bedolla
MTC-00009117
From: D. Sauntry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello.
I'm writing to express my approval for the Microsoft Settlement.
I understand that I am within the public comment period, and I would
like to register my view that the settlement is within the public
interest. Microsoft has worked hard to reduce the
[[Page 25114]]
price of software. Years ago, single applications would cost
hundreds of dollars. Windows now includes some of that functionality
for free in the Operating System, in a way that makes it much easier
to use. The competition, such as Oracle, Sun, and Apple, continue to
sell competing solutions at much higher prices. They would very much
like to see Microsoft artificially held back in order to benefit
their ill-conceived marketing strategies.
The settlement provides significant relief for the behavior that
Microsoft has been found guilty. It should be approved. Any further
action would go beyond the findings and work to significantly
disadvantage Microsoft in the future market--and obviously advantage
the above competitors. I fear that the end result of any further
action will be higher prices paid by consumers.
In short, the settlement is in the public interest.
Thank you,
David Sauntry
MTC-00009118
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a taxpayer and citizen, I strongly urge you to bring the
Microsoft case to closure and implement the proposed settlement as
quickly as possible. All parties have looked at the facts in
excruciating detail, and fair minds agree that the settlement is
reasonable. Further expenditure of time and money is pointless, and
can only result in jockeying for position, not in better
understanding and decision making.
Sincerely, Curtis T. Hill
MTC-00009119
From: Jim Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the DOJ
Please stop rewarding the few special interests in the category
of Apple Computer, Sun, Time Warner, Oracle, (Netscape and AOL). I
am not a fan of Microsoft but they do provide a system that can
benefit us all and keep prices low. There are too many financial
reasons against the issue continuing the lawsuit against Microsoft.
I realize that many Americans have jobs with MSFT and they cannot be
laid off in this economic time. Also may I mention THE HUGE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE that MSFT does in other countries--that would be
lost and therefore the balance of trade would further go away from
OUR favor.
Stop helping our enemies. No NAPHTHA (that benefits Cuba) No DOJ
suit (that helps lose jobs that are needed now. STOP special
interest--if they have a BETTER PRODUCT line than MSFT let them show
it and sell it--the market always drifts to the best product.
MTC-00009120
From: Julie Casso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:41pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Settlement
As taxpayer in Great Falls, Virginia, I would like to forward
some comments about the Microsoft settlement that your Department is
now working on. My view is the case needs to be promptly settled.
The U.S. government taking on a major successful company and an
economic engine of the past decade did little but send technology
stocks into a fearful spiral downward. Laissez Faire is the approach
the government should take, unless their is a true monopoly (i.e. no
other companies providing the product or service), which does not
exist in this case. My opinion: settle the case and spend the time
on issues with more merit.
Sincerely submitted,
Julie Casso
MTC-00009121
From: mtman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is this families opinion that this entire fiasco is out of
line. It is to the great detriment to even remotely consider any
further action other than the basic settlement. MS is the industry
standard and those companies like AOL are a pack of cry babies that
can not or do not wish to compete. We feel that Microsoft has given
us the very best product that our money can buy. We implore the
department to settle right now and end this nonsense!
Mr. & Mrs. Richard F. Hill
MTC-00009122
From: Jeffery Budzynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs,
I am a member of the BeOS Operating System community. This
Operating System can very well survive in the computer market place,
if we, as users of a global computer network enviroment, can have a
mandatory dual-boot option, along with open file formats that
Microsoft has been controlling.
Thank you,
Jeff Budzynski
MTC-00009123
From: Joseph Roni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
We understand that a few special interest groups are attempting
to use this review period to derail the settlement of the Microsoft
case and to prolong the litigation even in the midst of these
uncertain economic times. As a private citizen my wife and I object
to continuing this litigation. The last thing the American economy
needs is more litigation which benefits only a few wealthy
competitors who cannot compete with their own innovation.
Please don't let these special interest groups defeat the public
interest.
My wife and I are retired and our invested retirement worth has
declined significantly since this litigation was initiated and it
seemed to us that it was one of the leading causes for the rapid
decline of the NASDAQ stocks and the stock market in general.
Let's settle this thing now for the good of the consumer, the
industry and the American economy.
Regards,
Joseph and Virginia Roni
Federal Way, Washington
MTC-00009124
From: george kajda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle with Microsoft. It's in the public best interest.
george kajda
707 westwood north dr.
magnolia, tx 77354
MTC-00009125
From: Scott Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone! The whole antitrust trial is nothing more
than the ``losers'' in the market using legal tactics instead of
innovation, and does NOTHING to help consumers. How can the
inclusion of a free Web browser be harmful to consumers? After all,
they're free to replace it should they decide to.
I see all of this as a waste of my taxes, and I strongly resent
it. There should be no settlement at all, but if there has to be one
then let it be the current one proposed to by the DOJ and agreed to
by Microsoft. Let's get on with it... I haven't been harmed at all.
If not for Microsoft, I doubt that personal computing would be
nearly affordable as it is today.
Scott Barton
Redmond, Washington.
MTC-00009126
From: Mike McCune
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I've waited until late so that I can fully digest and understand
the settlement. I work in the computer field, so getting a
settlement that allows competition without harming the computer
industry is very important to me. I won't rehash the current
settlement proposal since that has been done endlessly by now. I
will only say that it has so many exceptions and exclusions that is
would be unenforceable. We must not make the same mistake we made
with the 1995 consent decree. The final settlement must be both
simple and enforceable.
There only needs to be two simple conditions that need to be
enforced:
1) Microsoft must give everyone full and timely access to all
interfaces, data formats, protocols and APIs. Full and timely is
defined by the oversite committee, not Microsoft.
2) Microsoft must give the exact same licensing terms to all
customers. It must also disclose the terms publically. This will
prevent Microsoft from using its monopoly to reward or punish
customers and vendors. There must be real and enforceable punishment
if Microsoft breaks these terms. If they break the first condition,
let everyone have access the the offending programs
[[Page 25115]]
source code. That would allows others to figure out the interfaces,
data formats, protocols and APIs for themselves. Breaking the second
condition would result in a fine. The fine would need to be big
enough to be a deterant. Microsoft has a large cash reserve and it
the fine it too small, they may decide to pay rather than obey.
Please let me know how I can view all the public comments and
how I can find out the final terms of the settlement.
Sincerely,
Mike McCune
Chicago, Illinois
MTC-00009128
From: Michael S. Scherotter
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to voice my concern with proposed remidies to the
Microsoft antitrust decision. One of the ways in which Microsoft has
prevented other OS companies from establishing any marketshare is by
prohibiting multi-boot configurations on OEM machines. Companies
like HP, Compaq, Sony, Micron, or any other manufacturer cannot
install a Microsoft OS along with a non-Microsoft OS because it will
void their contract with Microsoft. A user must installing a boot
loader which will allow other operating systems to boot instead of
their Microsoft OS. BeOS and Linux are operating systems that
requires a user-installed boot loader. One of the reasons that they
cannot compete successfully with Microsoft is that the hardware
manufacturer cannot install the boot loader and the alternative
operating systems even if the user is willing to pay for it.
These alternative operating systems provide a market that is not
being addressed by Microsoft:
BeOS is a robust multimedia platform
Linux is an open-source platform
As a remedy for Microsoft's antitrust behavior, I suggest that
Microsoft should not be allowed to make any contracts prohibiting
alternative boot loaders and operating systems installed by OEMs. In
addition I suggest that the settlement prohibit Microsoft to make
agreements with hardware manufacturers that insures that hardware
will only work on Microsoft Operating Systems.
Michael S. Scherotter
[email protected]
407 Scenic Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
MTC-00009129
From: Mike Zadar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madams and Sirs,
I have used the Be Operating System (BeOS) for several years now
and am abhorred by my government. BeOS users and the general public
have struggled for years and every step of the way for an
alternative to Microsoft.
Their monopoly has been unhealthy to computer industry and to
technology in general. BeOS is an innovative robust operating system
squelched by Microsoft through their exclusive boot loader
agreements with all the large computer manufacturers. Why my
government has allowed this monopolist tactic to continue is a
disgrace.
Microsoft record speaks volumes, and now BeOS was forced to sell
all it's assets to Palm to pay it creditors. Is this truly in the
best interest of the American Public. Should our government allow
another JP Morgan or is Mr. Gates made another back room deal with
the Department of Justice?
Be Inc. and all the user of BeOS deserve justice. I have read
the Settlement agreement from beginning to end, it an insult and a
travesty. I don't want my children to learn about computers through
the eyes of Mr. Gates and his twisted Windows. It make me sick to
think our government agreed to that nonsense. Please reconsider the
best interest of the American Public, Microsoft is clearly not in
the picture. The computer industry needs access to or open Office
file formats, Win32 APIs, and make dual-boot options mandatory.
If not for this generation think of our kids, please.
Respectfully,
MTC-00009130
From: Ethan P. Wieting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft
I believe that what has been accomplished is fair and equitable.
The only people standing for futher ligiation are Microsoft's
competetors.
Ethan P Wieting
MTC-00009131
From: Jim Sexton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
It is time to move on!!! It is a very good thing to have this
settlement behind us, well almost. Let us not loose sight of the
fact that if there had not been a Microsoft to set the technology
standards in this country, we would not be the leader in technology
for the world. Technology people always think their mousetrap is
better than the other guy's. Well, so what, if Microsoft had not
forced the standards that exist today, we wouldn't be able to buy a
computer for $900 that is more powerful than Big Blue's mainframes
in the 80's. Think about it, would be able to do the thinks we take
for granted today, without the PC. We should just standup and thank
Microsoft for being a company in the United States of America and
not somewhere overseas.
A very pleased consumer. Let's tell all the whiners to shut up
and get to work. If they don't like what Microsoft has done for the
consumer, why don't they invent a better mousetrap that I will buy,
instead of Microsoft's. So far, they haven't done anything but whine
and cry.
Jim Sexton
MTC-00009132
From: Dan D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets get on with this settlement, any more legal action is going
to benefit very few people, and certainly not the majority of the
American people.
Thanks for listening to me.
Sincerely,
Dan Darling
MTC-00009133
From: Mike Inman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support settling this case.
Microsoft has been on its heels for too long. It is hurting the
whole tech sector of our economy.
MTC-00009134
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I seldom become involved in matters that do not directly affect
me, but believe this antitrust case deserves me to do so. Let's
settle and get this issue put to bed. The case should never have
reached this point, so now that a settlement has been agreed upon,
let's get it done. Don't let a few states or competitors located
within those states drag this case before more courts.
Thanks.
Richard K. Leichner
1377 Loch Haven Drive
Hayden Lake, Idaho 83835
MTC-00009135
From: Jane BrightPreffered Customer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:44am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
GET OFF OF MICROSOFTS BACK
KEITH & JANE BRIGHT
MTC-00009136
From: darenw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am aware that the DOJ is seeking input from the public
regarding the Microsoft Settlement. About two months ago I bought a
new notebook computer. It came with Windows XP. I asked the salesman
if it could run BeOS or Linux, which I strongly prefer. Especially,
I asked him if the manufacturer's or retailer's warranties and
service plans would remain in full force, or if changing operating
systems would void part or all of these warranties. I had the
impression that the salesman didn't know anything about these
``alternative'' operating systems, or what effect they'd have on the
warranties offered.
I bought the machine anyway, because I did my homework already,
and knew it could run Linux. Luckily, it also runs BeOS just fine as
long as one special setting is made upon bootup. It runs faster than
similar computers that have Windows XP loaded, and is very close in
speed to Linux, given the same hardware.
[[Page 25116]]
Everywhere I go, everyone know about windows, and everyone
complains about windows. The few people who are not technical
experts and have seen BeOS like it, and wonder why it isn't better
known. The fact the Be Inc. has closed does not reduce my preference
for it, or slow down the production of software from those who also
prefer it.
What I'd like to see as a result of the Microsoft Settlement is
that I can walk into a retailer that carries computers, and see BeOS
running demo software, or to walk into a cyber-cafe and see that
their computers are running Linux or FreeBSD to offer web surfing
and other services. People should no longer think Computer = Windows
= unreliable, but know that there are choices and be free from the
effects of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) planted in the public
forum by Microsoft and its allies. Also, no manufacturer, VAR or
retailer should feel any pressure to offer only Windows, or have any
constraints however indirect from Microsoft, as to what operating
system may be pre -installed or user-installed.
Thank you for your attention.
Daren Scot Wilson
[email protected]
(970) 226-2276
MTC-00009137
From: Joy muzhuthettu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The Justice Dept. must take initiative to resolve the Case
immediately.The Dept. must go with the majority of the States
decision. Not with the 9 states vested interests.
The majority of the American consumers want to settle the
problem .This is good for the ecconomy.It is more effective than
further interest rates cuts.
Joy
A U.S.citizen.
MTC-00009138
From: Steve Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:50am
Subject: Public Comment
I have watched Microsoft for years and they are anticompetitive
and monopolistic. Unregulated capitalism is not always in the public
interest. The proposed remedy is insufficient.
Steve Barnes
75682 Wicks Road
Dorena, OR 97434
MTC-00009139
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I believe that it's in the best interest of American consumers
(and indeed of the US economy) for the DOJ to quickly resolve it's
issues with Microsoft. I think that there never really was a case
against Microsoft that warranted any kind of major penalties.
Thank you.
Larry Delaney
Consumer and small business owner
MTC-00009140
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer, I urge you to speedily conclude this case so
Microsoft can move forward and apply their resources to technology.
I would rather see my taxpayer $ spent on more productive pursuits.
Amy Liu
MTC-00009141
From: Krishna Murty M S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Respected Sir/Madam,
I sincere feel that the row between DOJ and Microsoft has taken
a long time. In this mean time, MS (Microsoft) has undergone
enormous strain both from the industry and internally. They have
applied themselves for what ever they have promised for. They will
do the same with the sanctions or settlement terms mentioned by the
DOJ and 9 states. I wish the court respects the settlement and puts
an end to this rather long and tiresome battle of MS and DOJ. I
would also request the concerned to take initiative into persuading/
obliging the 9 other states into respecting the settlement.
This legal battle against the so-called monopoly has long taken
the shape of grudge and vengence. With due respect to the concerns
of everyone involved, I firmly believe that MS is in its grounds
when it does not give its source code to public. I wish to state an
analogy. Though you respect your neighbours and are very friendly
with them, you do not end up giving lock and keys of your house to
them. Unless of course you are absolutely confident of their
friendship. Now, appling the same analogy, any of the self
proclaimed sufferers of the monopolistic behaviour of MS are far
from being friendly. I wouldnt give my keys to any of them.
Microsoft respects the legal verdict and the jurisdiction and has
taken/started to take steps in doing so. I only wish the legal
battle ends here. Its good for the concerned parties and good for
American and world economy.
Regards,
Krishna Murty M S
India.
MTC-00009142
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department Representative:
I am writing to voice my support to the settlement of the
litigation against Microsoft. The software industry (despite the
allegations against Microsoft) is amongst the most fluid and
competitive in the world. The application of dated antitrust law to
this competitive marketplace is a dangerous government intervention
into a functioning market.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steve Albert
Partner, Grant Thornton, LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio
MTC-00009143
From: Victor Lengquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues as these aren't addressed: open
Office file formats, Win32 APIs, make dual-boot options mandatory,
etc...''
MTC-00009144
From: Joseph Boykin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing as a citizen of Massachusetts and the United States
of America in regards to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. A
number of states have already decided not to join the proposed
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I
believe theirs is a wise move as the proposed settlement is grossly
unfair to the American public.
As a ``computer professional'' I am very familiar with the
industry and Microsoft and firmly believe that the proposed
settlement is unfair to numerous corporations that have attempted to
develop competing products, consumers who have used or even those
that have *not* used Microsoft products. The settlement does nothing
to stop these actions and worse, give Microsoft a wedge to drive
itself into the one market, education, that it has been unsuccessful
at winning against Apple Computer.
I hope that a more fair and equitable agreement can be reached
in regards to this matter. I urge you to reconsider this settlement
proposal.
Yours truly,
Joseph Boykin
7 Hampton Road
Natick, MA 01760
MTC-00009145
From: Chuck Donovan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs:
As a longtime computer user and as a consumer of Microsoft and
other computer software products I ask that you stop all action
against Microsoft and allow them to get back to work unimpeded by
the government.
Charles E. Donovan
MTC-00009146
From: Bill Fisk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:25am
Subject: microsoft settlement
An example of the current 'problem' of Microsoft's monopoly in
the OS and office productivity software markets is the ubiquitous
'.doc' file. This one proprietary file format I believe is one of
the cornerstones of Microsoft's OS/productivity suite monopoly. Many
people I know in the academic and business communities regularly
purchase updated versions of
[[Page 25117]]
Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office for the sole reason that
their correspondents send them .doc files as e-mail attachments. The
options for importing these files into 3rd party applications are
many; however, having personally tried a number of such programs, I
can say that many work well some of the time, none work well all of
the time. The continuing cycle of forced upgrades to maintain
compatibility with correspondents lies at the heart of Microsoft's
monopoly.
As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that Microsoft
should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the file
formats used by its products to anyone who sends or receives files
in such formats and requests the information.
Bill Fisk, Ph.D., Professor
Educational Foundations Coordinator
Co-Director of PT3 Project Jericho
http://itcenter2.clemson.edu/jericho
404-B Tillman Hall
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0715
864-656-5119 (fax 864-656-1322)
MTC-00009147
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:35am
Subject: (no subject)
I feel that a fair settlement should be reached within a
justifyable period and avoid the prolongation by further litigation
which hampers an actrive productive pace.
MTC-00009148
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:37am
Subject: (no subject)
To whom it may concern, re: Microsoft Settlement Please accept
Microsofts terms and conclude this case. We should have used our
resources to pursue the foreign countries that pirate our software,
games, music, movies and technology in general. We are fortunate
that MS has not relocated his business to another country as I would
have done if I were
Mr. Gates.
We have lost our manufacturing sector. Protect the ``information
society'' assets we have left. We should have allocated our E
Business and personal computer technologies worldwide as OPEC does
oil. Dale Flanigan 440-975-1111
MTC-00009149
From: Raymond Deschenes
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This whole thing has dragged on long enough. I am sure it had
substantial impact on the whole stock market last year. The proposed
settlement seems more than fair to me. I think Microsoft has bent
over backward on this. Let them get back to business, PLEASE!
Ray Deschenes
Marvin & Palmer Associates, Inc.
1201 N. Market Street--Suite 2300
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 573-3570
MTC-00009150
From: howardnancy Adelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft ``Offenses''
Microsoft may have a ``monopoly'' on their DOS, but I do not at
all feel that they have exerted this ``monopoly'' to the detriment
of consumers by high prices and other ``crimes'' they are accused
of. Rather, they have brought standardization and fair prices for
excellent software. I feel that the lawsuit against them is bogus
and brought on by their competitors (some monopoly!) who cannot
compete against them in the marketplace.
Howard Adelman, M.D.
MTC-00009151
From: Kurt Grimm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Make a settlement now. Put this to rest. Get on with life.
/*Kurt Hermann Grimm
/*Systems Analyst II
/*Yale University, School of Medicine
/*Pathology--BB50
/*T:203.785.5154
/*P:203.766.9687
/*F:203.785.2403
/*e:[email protected]
MTC-00009152
From: Bill Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
Greetings Judge Kollar-Kotally,
There comes a time at least once in everyone's life when a
monumental decision is thrust upon them. A ``moment of truth,'' if
you will. A decision between right and wrong ... truth and justice
or dishonesty and injustice. You, Judge, have the burden of such a
decision right now. I can only imagine what it must be like to have
your ``moment of truth'' involve so many economic, political,
technological and human implications. I pray that you make the wise
and honorable decision that all ethical business people hope you
will make: That is, to reject the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) that
Microsoft is so eagerly and greedily seeking and do what you can to
force the right remedies to be exacted upon Microsoft, so as to
level the playing field.
Having written columns for major technology, business and
investment magazines for the last two years, while appearing on CNN,
SKY News, PBS and Bloomberg TV, I speak with a tad more authority
than most casual observers. Microsoft violated, and continues to
violate, every reasonable and ethical business value and concept ...
there is literally nothing to which they will not stoop. A few
examples:
**It is pretty well known that Microsoft's internal strategy has
always been the ``Three E's.'' One might hope that this scheme is
some warm and fuzzy, people-oriented plan for business success,
perhaps Ethics, Empathy and Employees ... and one would be dead
wrong! The three E's stand for: Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. The
way Microsoft has employed this devious strategy time and time again
is: First, Microsoft embraces a much smaller competitor in whose
technology they see some potential, or threat to one of their myriad
of businesses; second, Microsoft extends the competing technology to
work best with their Window proprietary platform; and, finally,
Microsoft extinguishes the competitor. This is precisely the
sequence of events Microsoft used against Netscape a few years ago.
Just ask Jim Barksdale. In my estimation, there is absolutely no
place in business for this kind of evil intention or dastardly
operational scheming.
**I personally know tech CEOs who have received the now infamous
phone nastigrams from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. During these
calls, Ballmer threatens the CEO's business, employees, income and
subsequently, families, if they won't do whatever it is in
particular that he wants them to do. The only parallel I can draw
between this kind of behavior is one of how organized crime operates
when they try to enter an industry through threats, extortion and
protection rackets. I hope Rudy Guliani becomes the US Attorney
General someday, as he knows how to prosecute these types of
criminals very effectively and he would find it amazingly easy, I
believe, to bring Ballmer, et. al. up on serious RICO charges.
**The ways that Microsoft deals with its partners is nefarious.
Only interested in the benefit any particular relationship brings to
themselves, they have made a consistent habit of pressuring smaller
partners, who of course want to work closely with Microsoft, into
unreasonable concessions, ill advised contributions and poor
decisions with regard to affording Microsoft an unfair competitive
advantage. If you dig a bit, you will find that even Microsoft's
closest henchmen such as Compaq, Dell and others, internally despise
Microsoft and wish for it to get its comeuppance.
**Microsoft has gotten a lot of mileage out of the fallacious
claim that they are innovators of technology, or that in some silly
way they stimulate innovation and competition in the marketplace.
This could not be further from the truth. From the very inception of
Microsoft, where Bill Gates paid $80,000 to a small Washington state
software company to obtain what would eventually become the MS-DOS,
or Windows operating system and allow Microsoft to completely and
unfairly dominate the software business, Microsoft has not innovated
much of anything. Let's see, they bought their monopoly from the
company who innovated the operating system, stole the ``look and
feel'' from Apple Computer and forced it down the throats of IBM and
virtually every other computer OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer)
and that of business, consumer and personal users worldwide. Nice.
Nice way to build a business. Then, they either stole or bought
virtually every application they then used to bludgeon other
software and application developers into oblivion. Ask any non-
Microsoft software or application developer (this should be easy, as
the vast majority of these technology people are not employed by
Microsoft, and hence are anti-Microsoft), whether their innovative
work has been slowed, hampered or stymied
[[Page 25118]]
by Microsoft in one way or another, and the answer will always be
``yes.''
The sheer temerity that it takes for Microsoft to claim that
somehow innovation in technology will suffer if they are held
accountable for their crimes is absurd and astonishing. Fact is, I
cannot think of, and Microsoft cannot with a straight face proffer
anything of real substance that it has directly and completely
invented. Innovation, would not as Microsoft says, suffer, but
explode with unleashed energy which until then was suppressed by
Microsoft's total domination of the software industry along with
their unfair and anti-competitive business practices.
In summation, as I aggressively stated in a CNN interview some
five years ago, ``Microsoft undeniably violates every anti-trust law
every written. There can be no argument made that Microsoft should
be left intact and allowed to bully, harass and control other
software and technology companies, given the US Supreme Court's
decisions to break up Standard Oil in 1911, severely limit IBM in
1954 and break up AT&T in 1973. It is just not possible. Microsoft
dominates their business sector to a greater extent than John D.
Rockefeller or AT&T ever did. If the US government saw fit to split
these businesses, then Microsoft should receive this treatment and
more. More aggressive penalties will have to be created so that the
damaged parties can be recompensed, so that future competition and
innovation will be secured and so that Gates and Ballmer will never
again resort to these kinds of business operations which even
Machievelli would have found distasteful.'' Please make the right
decision, Judge ... during this, your ``moment of truth.'' God Bless
America!
All the Best, Bill
William R. Robinson
Chief Marketing Strategist
Relentless Marketing
``Relentlessly Getting Results''
UK Tel.: +44 (0) 1608 664-200 Fax: 664-400
UK cell phone: +44 (0) 7970 479-130
Toll-free U.S. voice-mail: +1 877 763-1200
E-Mail: [email protected]
On the Web: www.relentlessmarketing.com
*Columnist for Upside Magazine (www.upside.com), Marketing
Magazine
(www.marketing.haymarket.com), Business 2.0 (www.business2.com),
Fortune Small Business (www.fsb.com), Cisco System's iQ Magazine
(www.cisco.com), Tornado-Insider (www.tornado-insider.com) and
United Airline's Hemispheres Magazine
(www.hemispheresmagazine.com)
MTC-00009153
From: Richard M. Salsman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:12am
Subject: Drop the case
My ``public comment:''
The case against Microsoft should be dropped, because it's an
assault on the firm's property rights. Indeed, the antitrust laws
themselves should be abolished, as an unjust taking under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
For more, see attached.
Richard M. Salsman, CFA
President & Chief Market Strategist
InterMarket Forecasting, Inc.
162 Sidney Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617-252-3483
Fax: 617-252-7461
Web site: www.intermarketforecasting.com
InterMarket Forecasting, Inc. is an investment research and
forecasting firm that quantifies market price indicators to guide
the asset allocation decisions and trading strategies of pension
plans, asset managers, financial institutions and hedge funds.
MTC-00009154
From: Josh Sparks
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I would like to briefly express my opinion in favoring an end to
the litigation against Microsoft and in having a settlement finally
reached. Doing this will help ensure a quick end to the devastating
blow this lawsuit has inflicted upon on our economy and the citizens
of the United States.
Respectfully,
Josh Sparks, MSS
NewData Strategies www.newdata.com
Consulting* Hosting* Education*
Ph# (972)735-0001x149
Ph# 1-800-258-6628
Fax (972)735-8008
Email [email protected]
MTC-00009155
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not think this settlement is fair. Forcing Microsoft to
``give away'' its software as punishment is not punishment at all.
The actual cost to Microsoft is minimimal. However the benefits are
fantastic, they get a leg up on the competition by getting their
product in front of the public and children. Children are then
taught to use Microsoft products and they are now their customer. A
great deal for Microsoft. The punishment should be for a cash
settlement or force Microsoft to purchase competitors products for
the schools.
Charles Pappas
20 grand View Road
Arlington, MA 02476
781-643-3253
MTC-00009156
From: James W. Bushee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I was pleased by the announcement of the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I credit that to the wisdom of the leadership at the
Department of Justice and know that it took a lot of thought and
extensive work. Although the proposed settlement wasn't as
permissive as Microsoft would have liked, it wasn't as onerous as
sought by Microsoft's competitors. I congratulate you and truly
believe it was in the best interest of the public.
I want to go on record in support of the settlement. I just hope
we, as a Nation/our government, can move on now to address real-time
problems. It is unfortunate Microsoft's competitors are so intent on
making lawyers rich by seeking to continue litigating.
J. W. Bushee
MTC-00009157
From: Stan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft
Stanley Kneppar
8109 Hibiscus Circle
Tamarac, FL 33321
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This letter is to express my support for the settlement in the
Microsoft case. This is a balanced agreement, painstakingly
negotiated with a court appointed mediator. Microsoft will have to
make some critical concessions, while being allowed to use the
technology that has made it the gold standard for computer
innovation.
I am convinced that Microsoft's success comes from the
simplicity and superiority of its product. I briefly used the
Netscape Navigator before switching to the Microsoft Internet
Explorer, and I found the latter to be very preferable. The company
does not deserve to be punished with litigation just for being a
success. I anticipate that as Microsoft is forced to open up its
codes for Windows to improve interoperability, we will see the
competition and Microsoft improve such soft ware as browsers and
media players. In turn, that is good for consumers.
I sincerely hope the District Court Judge deems the settlement
to be in the public's best interest.
Sincerely,
Stanley Kneppar
cc: Representative Robert Wexler
MTC-00009158
From: Connie and Tom Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:January 7, 2002
The Microsoft litigation has gone on long enough. The people at
Microsoft are not saints, but neither are their competitors.
*Most of the states that are still pursuing the litigation have
budget problems of their own, so their motives are mixed to say the
least.
*Many of the class action trial lawyers feel that getting money
and software products to some schools is a better idea than spending
it covering legal fees. I've bought Microsoft products for years.
How large a check am I likely to get in the mail if a class action
lawsuit were to prevail?
*Finally a word about Microsoft's theme about being free to
innovate. I recently upgraded to Windows XP, and have been
[[Page 25119]]
quite pleased at the number of new and improved features that this
operating system contains, everything from a good web browser, to an
improved backup and a firewall that really works. Plus literally
dozens of additional features. Certainly most consumers don't want
to have to buy each of these features separately, and then keep them
updated. Microsoft does ensure that its office products work well
with it its operating system. But the settlement which it reached
with the Justice Department will make it very difficult to Microsoft
to interfere with the development and marketing of good competitive
products.
I hope that in when the District Court decides this issue, it
will accept the proposed settlement. What I fear most is not
Microsoft, but rather excessive regulation of the software and
technology industries.
Sincerely,
Tom Forster
MTC-00009159
From: Dallas Lawrence
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I write to respectfully file my personal objections to the
proposed settlement now laid before the Court in Microsoft v. US. As
a native of California's ``Silicon Valley'' I have had the
opportunity to witness the many negative results of Microsoft's
monopolistic and predatory practices first hand and am greatly
concerned with what now appears to be a complete abandonment of the
previous Court findings in this case. After years of legal
wrangling, millions of tax dollars spent and unanimous findings of
the U.S. Court of Appeals, it would no doubt now be a travesty of
justice for the Court to mete out anything but a balanced judgment
against Microsoft, seeking full redress for the findings of the
Court of Appeals.
I am quite confident that Your Honor will receive thousands of
letters expressing the many technical flaws of the proposed
settlement, in far better language than I could possibly hope to
offer in this brief appeal. Therefore, I will focus this letter on
one overriding concern not adequately addressed in the proposed
settlement:
The proposed final judgment does not appear to provide for an
effective enforcement mechanism for the minimal restrictions it does
provide for. If there is one thing we have learned from dozens of
previously failed ``watchdog'' programs, both home and abroad, it is
that, if there is no adequate and independent enforcement mechanism
in place to enforce the agreement, there is no incentive for the
penalized party to abide by the findings. Providing for an
inspection panel with a 2/3rds majority, either directly appointed
or approved of by the party under inspection, opens the entire
process to severe criticism at the least and complete
ineffectiveness at the worst.
If the Court is to agree with the unanimous findings of the U.S.
Court of Appeals, Microsoft's guilt is no longer a matter for
debate. The Court must now decide that the United States Government
is both serious in meting out punishment for past illegal practices
and equally dedicated to curbing future abuses under the law.
I respectfully submit to the Court that the proposed final
judgment does neither.
Respectfully,
Dallas B. Lawrence
1601 Argonne Place, NW #517
Washington, DC 20009
MTC-00009160
From: James Doc Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:03am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please accept the microsoft settlement. This lawsuit has already
destroyed the retirement income of thousands of people. It should
have never been brought in the first place. Pleae do not continue to
harm the american public with this lawsuit.
Doc
MTC-00009161
From: steve skinner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
The companies that should be facing criticism are Sun and
Oracle. Oracle has done everything they can to become a monopoly and
since Informix has been bought they no longer face competing with
superior technology. Sun is much worst. They are the ultimate
hypocrites. They claim JAVA as the open standard and don't give it
to standards. Sun also is the group that stopped the OSF initiative
for a Unix standard.
Why hasn't Oracle been sued as a monopolistic company? Why is
Sun allowed to castigate Microsoft for practices that it strives to
achieve?
MTC-00009162
From: Jonathan Tarbox
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I was deeply involved with the BeOS operating system at one time
and would greatly love to get back into the swing of things with it.
However, since Be, Inc. is no more and Palm is hesitant about
licensing out the BeOS source code to the BeUnited project
(www.beunited.org), I thought I'd voice my opinion.
The main thing that prevented BeOS, or any non-Microsoft
operating system, from being shipped on any mainstream OEM computers
was the MS licensing preventing OEM companies from being able to
install other operating system. There should be no bonus or penalty
to an OEM for not installing or installing another operating system
on a shipping PC. From what I knew of the deal, an OEM company would
loose out on bonuses that Microsoft would award thier OEM purchasers
if they installed other operating systems on thier shipping PCs.
And because of the lack of OEM support, hardware manufacturers
would often not write drivers for thier hardware for the BeOS. This
greatly hurt the momentem of the BeOS to a point that the owners of
Be, Inc. had to shift focus to Internet Appliance devices instead of
PCs. This also didn't pan out and the IP of Be, Inc. was sold to
Palm recently. Personally, I believe the settlement should prevent
MS from using licensing or monetary bonuses to sway OEMs into using
only MS products on thier PCs. It should also remove limitation of
not allowing any other operating system to dual boot with any MS
operating system.
Thanks,
Jonathan Tarbox
MTC-00009163
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
When this Midrosoft mess began, I could not believe our
Government was prosecuting an American Company which has done so
much to advance our society (both personal and business). Now that
the initial phase of the Salem process (prosecution) has been
completed and we no longer have an administration which requires
constant diversions, I believe it is time to stop this procecution
and address other issues in which the DOJ is so effective. e.g.
crime (dirty and white), Enron insider trading which is affecting
literally millions, illigal drug trafficing, etc.
The Microsoft case has, no doubt, financially enhanced the
``legal'' segment economy and the economies of some states which are
desperate for revenues. I only hope that the revenues (benefits)
generated for these entities is as beneficial and far reaching as
those which would have affected the shareholders of Microsoft and
the business community as a whole. I believe this entire process of
prosecuting Microsoft is unfair to the general public and business
alike. However, if Microsoft is willing to accept a settlement as
negotiated with the DOJ, I believe it is in the best interest of all
to close this matter and get on with more significant national
interest. I like our most recent governmental attitude, Lets Roll.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Larry Clark
15903 Redwood Pl
Houston, TX 77079
MTC-00009164
From: Comly, Jr, A. R.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen;
It is time to close this litigation and move on. I respectfully
encourage that all parties accept the settlement proposed by the
Tunney Act.
Sincerely;
Albert R. Comly
MTC-00009165
From: John Limmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:33am
Subject: Antitrust settlement
Dept. of Justice;
As a computer technology person in an independent school, I
cannot accept the wisdom of allowing Microsoft to provide free
[[Page 25120]]
software as compensation for their antitrust transgressions. This
would simply allow Microsoft to invade an area they do not currently
dominate. Once started down the Microsoft road, schools will not be
able to change course, it would simply be more and more Microsoft
products. Assess a financial penalty, then if you wish to help
schools, give then money, not Microsoft products.
John Limmer
Newark Academy
91 South Orange Ave.
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
MTC-00009166
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am writing to you as a comsumer interested in computers and
software and the innovation that provides better products for us. My
husband and I are both in favor of the settlement the goverment has
made with Microsoft. Please put an end to this ligation.
MTC-00009167
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let this settlement be done and over with. The US
Government has spent so much of our taxpayers dollars to go after a
company who is being penalized for being successful and it's
competitors are crying the blues because they are behind the 8-ball.
They are putting money into the pockets of Liberals to battle
Microsoft in the courtroom and not on the consumer product field and
it hasn't worked. Microsoft has continued to bring out new products
and prosper financially despite the Antitrust lawsuit against them
showing their resilience. If the Department of Justice wants a true
monopoly to go after, look back to proposed legislation from the
fall of 1999 from Senator Tim Johnson from South Dakota, I think,
about companies in the meat processing business owning livestock.
Some states have adopted laws to try to slow down companies like
Smithfield Foods. They continue to destroy a segment of the food
chain and this Government does nothing about it. They are the
largest pork processor in the US and the largest pork producer in
the US. They continue to grow by buying up the competition in their
market and totally control the market price of pork in this nation.
They also continue to grow by acquiring producer farms through a
practice they used during the market lows of the late 1990s of
ledger buying. They took over Murphy Farms that way, and they were
the single largest pork producer in this country.
Microsoft having market superiority does not hurt consumers, ask
consumers of their products what they think about them bringing new
products to the market, and if their bring competitive products, who
benefits? The consumer! If Smithfield Foods continues to roll like
an avalanche over the pork production business without any regard
period, who loses? The consumer just for starters! Pork producers as
well, the meat processing business, and the government. Please take
a look at this Goliath company and it's business practices. I live
in North Carolina and in the last 10 years have seen this company
single-handedly destroy the pork production business in the states
of North and South Carolina and Georgia. There are NO competitive
packers in the areas and every time there has been any rumors of
some other company coming to the Southeast, Smithfield Foods
immediately jumps on the situation with both feet and squelches any
possibility of competition in this area. They bought every
competitor in the area as well as some in the Midwest and have shut
them down. This situation is worthy of a look if any person within
the Department of Justice is truly concerned for the well being of
the citizens of the United States of America. Thank you! Robert A.
Fisher
MTC-00009168
From: Kirk Nason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10'55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to move on, please don't waste my tax dollars by tying
up technology in the legal system. Let the software companies
compete on their capabilities, not through lawyers. Microsoft has
done more for computing than any another software company. When my 6
year old can be productive for homework on Windows and Office, this
is a testimate to the abilities MS brings to society.
My family has not been ``harmed'' by pricing by Microsoft. I
continue to derive greater and great value from the integration MS
has achieved in their software products. There are more important
things for you to be concentrating on, like terrorism, security,
education and how bad our immigration and power problems are. This
is where we are getting ripped off. Even though I achieved the 20%
discount for power all summer (do to conservation, buying florescent
lighting, etc), my bill is radically higher than a year ago.
Fix the real problems ....
Regards,
Kirk J. Nason
714/842-8051
kirk [email protected]
MTC-0009169
From: Pete Kline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very much in favor of the Microsoft Settlement. This case
has been a witch hunt, pursuing a company that has done more to
drive consumer pricing down than any government agency ever thought
of.
Lets get it over with and behind us.
J. Peter Kline
214-378-4823
MTC-0009170
From: Sid Sidner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:12am
7 December 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I wish to comment on the proposed penalties in the Microsoft vs.
Department of Justice case. I have been a computer software engineer
for over 30 years. I use all of Microsofts products and have
developed sophisticated banking and electronic payment applications
that are sold worldwide, designed to using Microsoft Windows server
operating system and associated database and Web software. I also
have extensive experience with Unix and IBM mainframes. I lived
through the era of the IBM monopoly on computer systems, when I
watched innovation in hardware, software, and systems grind to
nearly a standstill. I have watched with dismay the same process
starting to occur again, courtesy of Microsoft. Microsoft has been
found to maintain monopolistic practices. What is at issue is what
remediation can be obtained for this past practice and what can be
done to prevent damage in the future.
The very future of computer technology is at stake here. The
United States is the world leader in computer technology and much of
our prosperity of the last ten years is based on this. Even in the
area of biology and medical research, computers are becoming
critical to further advances in genomics and diagnostic equipment.
Based on my technology and business experience, the following three
remedies seem simple, practical and effective:
The bundling of Microsoft software with personal computers
should be terminated, and replaced with realistic pricing of this
software as an extra-cost option, allowing third-party operating
systems (like Linux) and applications (like Lotus SmartSuite) to
compete; Microsoft must publish the file formats used by its
software with each release of the software, similar to the way they
publish application programming interfaces (APIs), allowing third-
party applications the ability to interoperate with Microsoft
applications; Likewise, computer-to-computer networking protocols
must be published when software is released, again to allow non-
Microsoft systems to interact with Microsoft systems.
None of these remedies are burdensome or expensive to Microsoft.
Please reconsider the proposed settlement to include these
remedies.
Thank you,
Sid Sidner
PO Box 335, Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0335
[email protected] (402) 850-7092
MTC-0009171
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please add my voice to those strongly supporting the final
settlement of the Microsoft case. The world is better off today, by
far, as a result of the genius and freedom to innovate of Microsoft
employees and management.
H.C. Graves
MTC-0009172
From: Walter Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25121]]
Date: 1/7/02 11:05am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
The attached letter expresses my concerns regarding further
action against Microsoft. Thank you for your consideration.
John W. Brown
3082 Greenwood Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The purpose of this letter is to implore you to agree to the
terms of the settlement that was reached between the Department of
Justice and Microsoft. The settlement was reached after three years
of extensive litigation and negotiations. To press this issue any
further would be a complete waste of time and money. The agreement
calls for Microsoft to grant computer makers broad new rights to
configure its operating system. They will then be able to promote
non-Microsoft software programs that compete with the Microsoft
programs included within Windows. Computer makers will now be free
to remove the means by which consumers access various features of
Windows, and can replace access to those features with access to
non-Microsoft software.
I have worked in the communications industry all my life, and
have seen first-hand how innovative products have a positive effect
on everyone. It is the same in the Information Technology industry,
and I feel that if there is someone smart enough to provide a
product that is far better than any other product, there is
absolutely no reason why we should make them share the intricate
design information with competitors. The government needs to keep
their hands off private businesses, thereby allowing businesses to
prosper and create more jobs. This will help our economy get out of
its recession
Please agree to the terms of the settlement that was reached
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, and do not take any
further action against Microsoft at the federal level.
Sincerely,
John Brown
cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
MTC-0009173
From: Richard McIntosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:25am
Subject: SETTLEMENT
DEAR DOJ,
PLEASE JUST LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY ARE THE INVENTORS AND
CREATORS THAT GOT US THIS FAR IN TECHNOLOGY. I USED TO BE A ``MAC''
FAN, ADVOCATE UNTIL I LEARNED WHAT A PC WAS, I WOULD NEVER GO BACK
TO A MAC. STIFLING THEIR R AND D WILL ONLY HOLD BACK TECHNOLOGY. YOU
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING THEM NOT ALLOWING OTHERS, (COMPANY'S) TO
BENEFIT FROM THEIR TIME, ENERGY, AND CREATIVITY.
IF OTHER COMPANIES WANT CERTAIN TYPES OF DESKTOPS OR SOFTWARE,
LET MICROSOFT LOAD IT AT THE FACTORY SO THAT PURCHASER FEELS
IMPORTANT. MICROSOFT DIDN'T START OUT AS A MONOPOLY, NEITHER DID
FORD, CHEVROLET, CHRYSLER ETC. THEY ALL HAVE CERTAIN RADIOS, AND
ENGINES AND WHEELS (FIRESTONE). ANYBODY HEARD OF THEM? IF ANYONE
DOES NOT LIKE MICROSOFT WARE, BUY A MAC. A CRASH (COMPUTER CRASH) A
WEEK WILL KEEP THEM BUSY.
THANKS FOR READING,
MAC
TEACHER, CREEKSIDE H.S.
MTC-00009174
From: Eric Candell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to submit my approval of your recent action to settle
with Microsoft on their anti-trust case. In reading through the
settlement, it appears that you have gotten some significant
concessions that ought to help to ensure that you can continue to
protect consumers. At the same time, you have come to a conclusion
that will finally cease the costly litigation that makes no sense to
me and other taxpayers.
I have never felt that Microsoft has tried to profit from me
without providing me an excellent set of products in which they
continue to innovate (Windows XP shows this quite clearly). They
produce the most reliable products of any I install on my computer.
And, they stand behind their products in a way that makes the user
feel like an important part of their equation for the decisions they
make.
With your proposed settlement, I have confidence that they will
not get out of control but can still continue to do the things that
I'm so grateful they can do.
Thanks for looking out for us-both in questioning Microsoft and
in seeking closure in this case.
Eric Candell
MTC-00009175
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2743 Moorsfield Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32225
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
USDOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing this letter today to make you aware of my feelings
about the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice. After three protracted years of trials, both
sides came to an agreement on the antitrust suit, and I fully
support the settlement.
The time has come for the United States to put that mess behind
us, and turn our attention to more pressing issues. Microsoft had
more restrictions than they deserved, such as disclosure of
intellectual property concerning the Windows operating system, but
the settlement is fair enough to both sides, and the government will
create an independent review committee to make sure that Microsoft
is holding up its end of the bargain. Microsoft has done so many
good things for the technology industry, has provided jobs to
thousands of individuals, and donated millions of dollars to
charities and schools. Why punish a company that has been so
beneficial to America?
I appreciate your time in accepting my opinion, and wish you the
best.
Sincerely,
Patricia Cappiello
MTC-00009176
From: Randy Black
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 11:26am
Subject: Get off Microsoft's case
Please stop this unnecessary litigation against Microsoft. You
are wasting taxpayer dollars, your time and are attempting to
bankrupt a great company.
Sincerely,
Randy Black
MTC-00009177
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government needs to settle this suit against Microsoft and
allow Bill Gates to concentrate on his business instead of fighting
off the government. It is a disgrace when a man builds his business
and then is penalized and persecuted by his government for doing a
good job and this is what has been done to Bill Gates. He should
just be left alone to handle his company.
MTC-00009178
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the settlement and move on. Why help Microsoft
competitors. The country needs a settlement. Don't make a few
lawyers rich.
Ted Shreve
MTC-00009179
From: Curtis, Iva, 127WG, 6180
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft
In regards to Microsoft's suit. I honestly feel that Microsoft
did nothing wrong, nor did they try to Monoplyze PC's by placing
their Browser on Desktop's. I just think that if someone comes up
with an idea first, that they should be allowed to go with it. If
Microsoft is smart and quick enough to beat others at doing this,
why should they be punished.
Well, this has been going on for such a long time and now comes
the time to deal out the punishment and Microsoft has to pay up. The
current settlement given is, I think, fair and Microsoft should be
left alone to go forward in the name of technology.
This is my opinion.
Curtis
MTC-00009180
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25122]]
Date: 1/7/02 11:36am
Subject: upcoming court action
Hello,
As a technology professional retired...I think we should get off
Microsoft and be thankful we have them in the USA. I have been in
the computer business since before Microsoft had the operating
system of choice. They can get a bit heavy at times and we should
keep a watch on them to police the industry but a vendetta on behalf
of their competition should not be an option.
Bob Ulrich . . . retired University of California, Davis
MTC-00009181
From: Mitch Malouf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:34am
Subject: Law suit
It seems that Microsoft is trying to be fair in this case but
the government, federal and state, want to punish Microsoft for
innovation. I some of the anti trust arguments, but government
should stay out of business. Allow the free market to work,
otherwise it will get political and destroy any business climate we
now have in place.
The lawyers are the only people benefitting from this case. The
consumer will pay eventually.
MTC-00009182
From: John Giovannini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!
Focus you attention on terrorists, both the kind that do
physical harm and the kind that do cyber harm with their e-mailed
viruses that disrupt work just because they can.
John Giovannini
MTC-00009183
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a software developer and consultant who has worked for an
anti-Microsoft company, I seriously believe that Microsoft's
competitors will stop at nothing to defeat the company. The proposed
settlement is a step in the right direction and the only thing
holding back the last nine states is a powerful lobby that has been
unable to defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. If Microsoft products
were really that bad, no one would buy them. There are several
documented pieces of software where Microsoft has filed (MS Bob for
example) and no level of marketing or dominance will let a bad
product win the marketplace. The question that must be applied is--
``Is this good for consumers?'' and I have to tell you to open your
eyes and see that consumers like convenience features like having a
calculator or simple word processor bundled with an operating
system. I don't think Microsoft is without flaws, but don't tie
there hands at the expense of my benefit.
Please urge the nine states to settle, for consumers, for
developers, for the industry and for our country.
Thank you
Daniel Fernandez
[email protected]
MTC-00009184
From: Dolan, Aline
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 11:54am
Subject: It's the Law! Under DoD you can ONLY buy Microsoft. We've
mandated their monopoly!
I'm scared of Microsoft as a company. I'm not scared of many
things in life, but they scare me. Maybe it's irrational, but I
don't think so. I have watched over the years as they've
misrepresented one thing and another. I told a friend, who is a
Microsoft Certified Engineer, that I used Linux for my home desktop
system, not being able to afford Microsoft, and he was amazed that I
could use a 'command line interface' as ``You're not a programmer!''
It turns out he was told in his MS certification class that Linux
was a command line OS understandable only by programmers. FOAD,
which equates to Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is the program that
Microsoft has launched against any competitor, without an iota of
truth, but what can a little guy do against them?
Now they have .Net, and I see a future where no one but
Microsoft customers will be able to access the Internet in the US.
Right now, I often have to come to work to view a web site as it's
been written in MS FrontPage. Many web sites written with FrontPage
4.0 are unviewable to any browser not running on a Microsoft
Platform, as FrontPage does not follow the W3C standards when
creating a web site. Why should they bother to write a web page
composer program which runs in any other browser? That defeats their
purpose.
MS was bundling FrontPage with their office suites, which means
their customers won't look for another web composer. Since these
people are not web designers, they don't understand the reason
FrontPage is a damaged product. It looks fine in their Internet
Explorer, so it must be a great page right? I try to do research for
a paper for my class, and I can't read 25% of the web sites I hit.
When .Net becomes the norm, I'll have to learn French or German in
order to surf the web anymore. For an example of what Microsoft has
done to the world as a whole, just look around your offices. The
Department of Defense will allow no other operating system to be
used, because they're stuck in the proprietary upgrade loop. Many
other Government offices have the same mandate. The US Government
puts millions of dollars per year into MS's pocket, because they
were conned early on and now they *think* they're stuck. The
decision makers are getting advice from NT engineers who are
desperate to save their jobs, and tell lies like 'Linux is a command
line interface users won't be able to understand.' Or maybe, like my
friend, they just don't know they're lying.
I work as an NT admin for the Navy. In just the last six months,
my command has spent over $20,000 for products which are available
without additional cost under Red Hat's Linux distribution. To date,
the software on servers and machines at this tiny dental command has
cost close to $65,000. Under RedHat Linux, it would have been under
$10,000 for everything (or you cold just by pass RedHat and download
it all for free). It's nuts that we're forced to do this.
I wish I had time to make this more compelling, but I'm on my
lunch break at work now. Ironically, the web site where I found your
address is a mess in my browser at home, as it was written in
FrontPage. I'm sure it's out there on a page I could read, but I'm
too busy to go looking. As a side note, I can read less than one
half of the Government web sites on the web, as most of them were
created in Frontpage, or deliberately written to work only in
Internet Explorer. I work for the Naval Dental Center, but at home I
can't access my eMail or get updates or notices, because I don't use
Microsoft at home, and I don't think it's right that I should have
to pay over $5,000 to replace all of my current software with
Microsoft software. I'm a taxpayer too. Don't I have the right to
view pages made with tax dollars? Oh well, that's another rant
altogether.
Aline (Ali) Dolan
Naval Dental Center Southeast
Box 74
Jacksonville, FL 32212-0074
(904) 542-3546 ext 176
DSN Prefix 942
http://ndcse.med.navy.mil
MTC-00009186
From: chester c fong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Department. of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
As a private citizen, this case should be closed and left as is.
It has cost quite a bit of money to work on this case both from the
government (representing the people), the taxpayers who pay the
government to perform, and the Microsoft Co. who are the defendants
of this case.
The settlement brought forth by the lower courts is a fair one.
It costs Microsoft Company to pay for its transgressions of the law
and the Plaintiffs should be happy. The public (taxpayers) are sick
and tired of this case dragging over the past two years.
This case has been deemed fair by the courts, let it be. In the
interests of justice for everyone concerned it is closed.
Private Citizen, Chester fong
801 Franklin St.
Oakland, Ca 94607
MTC-00009187
From: RICHARD AMBROW
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft should be given the freedom to innovate.
Dear DOJ,
I support Microsoft and their freedom to innovate. I believe the
Microsoft case should be settled. The settlement will be good for
the American people and the American economy.
thanks. . . . .
Richard Ambrow
MTC-00009189
From: Robert I. Parker
[[Page 25123]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:15pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
please add my voice & vote for the finalization of the agreed to
settlement.
Robert I Parker
MTC-00009190
From: david owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:15pm
Subject: trial
we have wasted enough resources of the taxpayers on this farce
of a trial. There has not been any proof that I have been harmed by
Microsoft. This is a scam by the liberal dicksuckers from the
clinton administration-Janet Reno (gag)- to placate
Sun and Oracle, big donators to clinton and other appeasers.
Enough already. Get a life and rip Enron a new asshole.
MTC-00009191
From: Jack Frew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement under consideration is in the public
interest
MTC-00009192
From: Washburn, Nelson (GEAE)
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/7/02 12:28pm
Subject: microsoft case
SOUNDS LIKE SOUR GRAPES FROM THE COMPETITION. LEAD, FOLLOW OR
GET OUT OF THE WAY.
NELSON
MTC-00009193
From: bweidler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:33pm
Subject: anti trust action
end federal suit. it should never have been filed!!!!!
MTC-00009194
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:40pm
Subject: MS SETTLEMENT
RE: THE MS / DOJ SUIT SHOULD BE ENDED ASAP. THIS , I BELIEVE WAS
THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE DOWN TURN IN THE STOCK MKTS AND ILL CONCIEVED
BY THE CLINTON ADM. THE SOONER THIS DARK CLOUD IS REMOVED FROM OVER
THE THE TECH INDUSTRIES THE SOONER THE MKTS WILL RETURN TO A STABLE
AND PROFITABLE BASES. COME ON LETS END THIS WITCH HUNT AND MOVE FWD.
TRYING TO SAVE FACE IS COSTING THIS COUNTRY TRILLIONS IN REV AND
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS. REGARDS: D GOSNELL PRESIDENT DLG
FIANCIAL INC.
MTC-00009195
From: Wayne (038) Mabel Rives
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In December 1996, I purchased my first computer, monitor and
printer at a cost of $1350. In November 2001, I purchase a new
computer, monitor, printer and premium speaker system for $750. I
realize we are in a recession, however, prices have been steadily
going down during this period. I fail to see how anyone can say that
Microsoft has hurt the consumer. Next, the Justice Department and 45
states have accepted the Microsoft settlement as fair and
reasonable. I do not understand how the seven states could possibly
think that the consumer or the states have been hurt and therefore
should be rewarded in a suit against Microsoft. I believe the suit
against Microsoft should be dismissed. Business needs to get on
without this cloud of uncertainty. Wayne W. Rives
MTC-00009196
From: JEAN NEAL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:41pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
To Whom It May Concern:
I want to stress how important this settlement with Microsoft
means to me as a consumer and as a Tax Payer. I want to continue to
benefit from Microsoft's innnovations. I do not want any more of my
tax dollars spent to fight the competitors inability to be as
creative. Micrsoft has agreed to modify future business practices.
Do not penalize a company who has the comsumers best interests at
heart. Do not reward competitors who have grown bigger and better
because of the competition. Do not force us to keep spending our
hard earned money litigating.
Sincerely yours
Jean Y. Neal
MTC-00009197
From: Lois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:47pm
Subject: Answer to Request
Yes, Yes--The Government should have thrown that stuff away and
quit torching Microsoft .
MTC-00009198
From: J.C. Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:48pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case/Letter
January 7, 2002
Department of Justice:
In today's economically down-turned climate, I encourage you to
conclude the erroneous case against Microsoft. I also ask that you
make this letter part of the official court record. Congressional
analysts are predicting an expected $11.3 billion shortfall in state
education budgets in fiscal year 2002. Private gifts could be vital
in this dilemma. But indiscriminate acceptance of contributions
could have catastrophic consequences, and some philanthropic efforts
may actually be wasted or cause inadvertently harm. As a result of
more than 100 class action lawsuits alleging Microsoft overcharged
consumers,
Microsoft has proposed a 5-year program and education
settlement. This agreement with private class action attorneys in
which Microsoft will direct over $1 billion in software, computer
equipment, technology training and support to thousands of schools
serving America's most disadvantaged children. It can be correctly
argued that lack of technology is not the major problem faced by
disadvantaged children. Chester Finn appropriately maintains that
the most successful schools that succeed with low-income pupils
generally do not surround them with electronics. Instead, he writes
in the Wall Street Journal: ``they engage knowledgeable and
committed teachers to deliver a powerful, coherent, curriculum built
on high standards of skills and knowledge.'' It is true
disadvantaged children may not necessary benefit. I would certainly
suggest that both public and private schools be considered in this
agreement. I would also advocate that low-income, high performing
schools be given greater priority in this proposal. However, the
settlement agreement could be a shift with tremendous potential for
low-income and minority children.
Technology in the wrong hands could divert children from
academic pursuits. However, technology in the right hands could
easily narrow the achievement gap. Therefore the risks clearly
outweigh the potential for harm. By targeting disadvantaged
children, Microsoft's investment could transform the cycle of
poverty, as well as empower many of these children.
Two innovative private urban schools in our state: Inner-City
Academy and Bethlehem Academy for Boys in Chattanooga are using
technology effectively to raise student achievement. Technology is a
key ingredient in their successful program, but no more than
excellent instruction, excellent textbooks and supplementary library
books. The Bethlehem Academy for Boys has successfully incorporated
parent involvement in their school using computer training. Will
Microsoft raise its market share in schools and deepen their
dependency on their products? Possibly. Yet nothing prevents other
Silicon Valley billionaires injecting their vast fortunes into the
equation. Apple, AOL Time Warner, Linux, Netscape, Oracle and Sun
Micosystems are free to make contributions anytime. In my estimation
any donation helps the tech industry in general, and is vital to our
economic future. Governmental activism put us in this position; do
we want more governmental activism to prevent this potential
assistance? The answer is a resounding no. Conventional liberalism
of the past must grasp an understanding of civil society and its
inherent freedom, as well as seek to rejuvenate admiration for
limited government and free-market economy. The values of
entrepreneurial capitalism grease the wheels of democracy and we
must attach importance to the social and cultural norms that make it
possible. As my dad used to say ``no dream comes true until you get
up and go to work.'' Many students are motivated and enjoy using
technology in their education experience. Microsoft has enriched the
education experience for many children and our work environments are
now more productive. It is also plausible that acceptance of this
agreement will allow schools to focus on other areas of need without
taking resources away from other academic programs. Granted
donations must be considered in coordination with the overall
strategic plan
[[Page 25124]]
and academic needs of individual schools. Partnering with a company
such as Microsoft and use of technology certainly has the potential
to enhance student performance. Microsoft has a history of corporate
philanthropy both in America and Internationally. Their generosity
and technology has helped schools and other organizations improve
effectiveness and save needed capital, in fact well over $6 billion
in charitable or corporate contributions were used here in Tennessee
for FY 2000. This court case needs immediate closure so we can begin
to make dreams come true for children and teachers in the state of
Tennessee.
Respectfully Submitted,
J. C. Bowman, Ph.D
Tennessee Institute for Public Policy
1808 West End Avenue, Suite 1214
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: 615-327-3120
FAX: 615-327-3126
http://www.TNPolicy.org
[email protected]
MTC-00009199
From: Mark Ratto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:53pm
Subject: They just keep lying...
To whom it may concern,
If you want to find out more lies that Microsoft keeps spinning
you can look at the following site. You would think that they would
have learned their lesson, but no. They just can't try and make a
superior product. They want to own everything in the Computer
Technology. They want to have all of the Networking business so bad
that they lie about out product, which they know is much better than
theirs.
www.whytheylie.com
Thanks,
Mark
Thank You!
MTC-00009200
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:53pm
Subject: Innovation
Everytime litigation is mentioned the stock market and the
economy is affected. The comprehensive agreement, already agreed
upon, is really a rough one. If further penalties are agreed upon, I
can't imagine what will happen to the economy, which I think is
coming back. The government gives large amounts of money to big
business and to Columbia [which get into the hands of the wrong
people] Let Microsoft have the freedom to innovate and not let the
special interest groups defeat us
Make us proud of you,
Helen Gildea
MTC-00009201
From: anndean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft
I feel this is unjust if all these states are against Microsoft
he should have more time. I feel the whole case is unjust a
monopoly?? Why Wal-Mart's sell food. drugs and now internet service!
His product is the best.
Case closed.
Ann Reed
10 Dover Lane
Hendersonville, NC 28739
MTC-00009202
From: Shane Fausett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a computer user that hates using windows. However I feel
that I am forced to do so. Because of Microsofts market position
alternative operating systems don't stand a chance. I feel that the
biggest abuse that Microsoft has been guilty of is that they
restrict the boot loader on OEM computers. Making it next to
impossible to buy a non-windows PC.
Thank you
Shane Fausett
MTC-00009203
From: David C. Crandall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sirs,
As a computer consultant, I have watched a large portion of the
anti-trust case. In my opinion, the original suit did not go nearly
far enough in exposing the depths of the anti-trust violations. The
issue of collusion with hardware manufacturers in making hardware
that was usable only with Microsoft products should have been
extensively pursued.
Also, the issue of Microsoft's `cooperation' with standards
committee's for establishing standards for internet browsers, java
(Sun Microsystems copyright, yet public domain), networking protocol
committees, e-mail standards committees and so forth should have
been prosecuted. The participation with Microsoft in these
committees is not for the general public good, but is with the
express intention and effect of turning `public standards' into
proprietary standards whereby Microsoft further locks out
competition.
A split of Microsoft Corporation into at least two entities is a
minimal remedy. Their continued monopoly in both the software and
operating system arenas is not healthy for even the short term.
Microsoft has become so large, that competition with them in either
arena is a farce.
Sincerely,
David C. Crandall
481 Rose Garden
McKinney, Texas 75070
972-346-2249
[email protected]
MTC-00009204
From: Meyers, Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:06pm
Microsoft is the most arrogant company in America. They
monopolize and crush any competition unfairly. They need to be
broken into three parts.
MTC-00009205
From: ROSE BUTKOVICH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE ACCEPT COURT OF APPEALS RULING!
MTC-00009206
From: avs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am glad that the DOJ is trying to resolve the Microsoft case.
I believe that the uncertainty surrounding Microsoft has and
continues to hurt the economy. I believe the quicker this is settled
and business can go back to ``business'', the better for all.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alan Spigelman
MTC-00009207
From: Matt Verran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US DOJ,
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed, especially
since Microsoft declared BeOS as a competing Operating System:
1) MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either
in form of a source code license or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with
Windows users.
2) The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
3) The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
4) The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
I would suggest that this is the minimun settlement, as
financial settlement will merely be paying to maintain the status
unfairly achieved so far. The damage to Be Inc, and their new owners
Palm Inc, has been substantial to the point of inability to operate
and compete effectively.
Regards,
Matt Verran
MTC-00009208
From: Curt Sahakian
To: Microsoft ATR, attorney. general@ state.ct.us @ inet ...
Date: 1/7/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement will not accomplished any valid
correction or even punishment of Microsoft.
The proposed contirbution of software product to schools is a
benefit.... it further's MS's Monopoly power by getting an early
commitment from children to their operating system.
[[Page 25125]]
Please accept the RedHat proposal to distribute their software
for free and instead require MS to contribute hardware not software.
The rest of the settlement is such a disgusting sellout by the DOJ
to Microsoft its hard for me to even comment on it. Please demand
more of Microsoft.
Thanks
Curt Sahakian
847/676-2774
MTC-00009209
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
gentlemen: i am not an antitrust lawyer, i know nothing about
antitrust laws and i only followed the legal proceedings in general
terms. on the other hand, i don't consider myself stupid either.
despite the judge's findings, i find it difficult to understand what
microsoft did wrong--they negotiated hard. what is wrong with that--
i don't under-stand why hard negotiating is illegal. the main
evidence against microsoft was from their competitors-- what do you
expect the competitors to say?? the bottom line is now that the
court has rendered its decision, and doj appears interested in
settlement, lets end this litigation as fast as possible. in this
era of business difficulties, microsoft appears to be one of the few
that is not laying off employees--they are making a profit--they are
paying their taxes. its time to end this as fast as possible. the
federal government has proposed a fair settlement the ``holdouts''
have no credibility--i suspect they all have ulterior motives beyond
the best interests of the consumer--like competitors being located
in those states, etc.. incidentally, was there ever any proof (other
than speculation from competitors) that the consumer was hurt by
anything microsoft did. it looks like the consumer got the best
product for the cheapest possible price. what's wrong with that??
isn't the government supposed to take care of the consumers most
importantly rather than the interests of the competitors??
Incidentally and in the interest of full disclosure, I own 800
shares of microsoft.- thank you--rvp
MTC-00009211
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please record my opinion to not punish Microsoft for its
success. It seems to me that some states are trying to help their
revenue shortfalls by going after a company that has a strong
financial sheet in the name of fairness. Let Microsoft do what it
does best and allow it to serve as an example for the way a business
should be.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Peter Brown
MTC-00009212
From: Josef Lowder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:24pm
Subject: The Microsoft bully
The Microsoft problem can be summed up in one simple statement:
Microsoft should be allowed to run their business any way they
want to ... as long as they allow others to run their businesses any
way they want to. The problem with Microsoft is that they force
themselves on the world to a ridiculous extent. They bully their way
along in everything they do. They are predatory toward anything that
is in any way competitive or potentially competitive toward them.
Computers and their operation are so crucially important to
virtually everyone today that it is a crime for anyone to try to
dominate how things have to be done on computers. That is what
Microsoft does. They do everything possible to force users into
using Microsoft products. Even though I am ``forced'' to use a
Microsoft operating system on two of my four computers, I do
everything that I possibly can to try to minimize the extent to
which I have to use anything Microsoft. But it is frustrating when
Microsoft intentionally designs their basic operating system so that
only Microsoft-based and Microsoft-dependent applications will run
on their operating system and will run only on their operating
system. Others are making a valiant effort to try to find ways
around the problem, but Microsoft continues to bully their way along
so that those without comparable resources can never adequately
overcome all of the intrusiveness that Microsoft imposes upon the
world. It is a travesty of incomprehensible proportions, and we can
only hope and pray that the anti-trust suit will bring some relief
to this untenable intrusion into our freedoms.
Joe Lowder
7514 E. Lompoc Avenue
Mesa, Arizona 85208
[email protected]
480-325-5055
MTC-00009213
From: Bill Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:24pm
Please know there are plenty of us out here, who believe the
government should be out of this case as soon as possible.
Thanks
Bill Reilly
MTC-00009214
From: Ian C. Crooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please protect the consumers from the Microsoft tyranny. BeOS
was squashed because of Microsoft's heavy handed OEM contracts,
forcing PC makers from bundling others OS's with the PC.
Allow consumers to make the choice of what they want to use as
an OS not Microsoft.
Ian C. Crooks, E.I.T.
Operations Engineer
Pennsylvania-American Water Company
114 E. Lincoln Highway
Coatesville, PA 19320
610-384-4405 ext:112
610-380-8532 fax
[email protected]
MTC-00009215
From: Bob Hannah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft case
I would like to thank you for pursuing the Microsoft case. I for
one, find it difficult being a webmaster, never mind a software
developer, with Microsoft having the power to set standards by just
``reinventing the wheel'' without any thought to industry as a
whole. Please consider additional remedies.
Bob Hannah
MTC-00009216
From: Kirchofer, Richard A
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 1:40pm
Dear Sirs:
Sour grapes, Microsoft has done more to make computers useful to
the common man than all the other companies put together. The trial
is over, let's move forward on important issues like getting
broadband into every home and business. I don't use all Microsoft
products I do have a choice. However I do not have a choice for the
phone lines coming to my house. Bellsouth is a monopoly in my
neighborhood with no intension of providing hardware capable of
supporting DSL or even a 56K modem. We live in a dynamic world;
let's focus on the issues that limit our progress and productivity
and that hasn't been Microsoft for a long time!
Sincerely
Richard Kirchofer
MTC-00009217
From: Rocky C. Burrous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The treatment that Microsoft has received from the government is
undeserved, and it is time that it ends. Luckily, a resolution has
been reached; with its adoption, the years of litigation can once
and for all be resolved. The resolution to which I refer is the one
reached in November after years of hard fought legal battles. The
terms of this settlement are ones that are beneficial to all the
people involved and still keep competition within this market. The
terms include a groundbreaking provision that requires Microsoft to
disclose crucial interfacing information to computer manufacturers.
It further stipulates that Microsoft cannot retaliate against
computer makers who do not promote their software or promote a
competitor's software instead. This is a resolution that preserves
the spirit of a free market and still offers protection for the
little guy. Well, folks, it doesn't get any better than this. More
litigation could only complicate the issue, and it could only waste
more time and resources. Therefore, the last thing we need is more
litigation. I implore you to let the current agreement be the end of
this situation. The resolution truly is the best that can be done.
[[Page 25126]]
Sincerely,
Rocky Burrous
MTC-00009218
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 1:59pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
I think it is a waste of our (taxpayers) money what is going on
it is just the states trying to make money. let the people decide if
they want to use Microsoft or not not a bunch of crybabies
(competitors) who can't do it on their own Rufus Richey
MTC-00009219
From: Janet Leih
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have never understood why the government was going after
Microsoft in the first place. Because I have been in computer
programming for and operations for 45 years, it seems idiot to me.
It was the only stupid thing Janet Reno did while attorney general
(I wish I could say I had only done one stupid thing in my life).
Before Microsoft wrote it's Windows system and MS DOS, IBM was
basically the only show in town. There were a few other computer
manufacturers, but IBM had the lion's share of the market.
The way Microsoft wrote the Windows system, they let any company
wrote software that runs under Windows, and may have been
responsible for the greatest economic surge in our history. What did
Apple do? Everything that runs on an Apple Computer is propriatory.
Nobody but Apple can write programs for their system. Thousands, if
not hundreds of thousands of small companies owe their existance to
Microsoft's decision to allow anyone run their software under
Windows. If Bill Gate gets wealthy by being inclusive rather than
exclusive, that just proves that democracy works to everyone's
benefit.
Before Windows, computers were huge, expensive, and were only
owned by large businesses and wealthy people. After Windows,
computers became small, inexpensive and everyone from millionaires
to school kids own them.
Microsoft has ``bundled'' many programs with its system
previously. I have ``notepad'', ``wordpad'', ``paintbrush'' and
``games'' and a ``sound recorder'' to mention a few ``accessories''
bundled with my system. Internet Explorer was just another accessory
that Microsoft was giving with its system to enhance the product for
the consumer. The fact that it was being given free makes it hard
for me to understand why the government is saying that this is bad
for the consumer.
I think it was bad for Netscape. Maybe it was bad for some other
businesses. But the consumer certainly wasn't in any danger of being
scammed because they were being given something free. That is
frankly a bunch of crap.
Janet Leih
P. O. Box 164
Canton, SD 57013-0164
(605) 987-5070
MTC-00009220
From: Jason Withrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has done a great deal for this country. It has
propelled us to the forefront of the technological age. It has
stiffened the economy by creating many well paying jobs, which are a
by-product of the great many technological innovations they have
introduced, and it has created a standard for which the internet was
able to flourish. Before Microsoft, networks could barely speak to
each other, with every subnet running it's own proprietary network
kernel. Now, we have a TCP/IP standard, introduced and largely
developed by Microsoft.
Let's stop and think where this country would be if it hadn't
been for the endeavors of Microsoft. If you think we would be in a
better place; history says you are mistaken.
The computing industry has had roughly 20 years to build a
better user-friendly, operating system. UNIX, BSD, AIX, and Linux
all have been around longer than Windows and have all failed to
achieve the success that Windows has.
Not because of anti-competitive practices, but because Microsoft
has a better product that is easy for people to use. How have they
hurt the consumer? I can remember paying $500 for a copy of Lotus'
Office suite and a similar price for Corel's before Microsoft
introduced MS Office.
Linux, which has less than a sixth of the features of Windows,
sells for only $20 less.
This is a Capitalistic Republic; the objective of a business is
to over-come your competition, not to help them.
An anti-Microsoft decision in this case will be devastating to
the economy and to the U.S.'s role of technological innovations. The
only one's that would benefit from an anti-MS decision is Microsoft
competitors and state governments that are always looking for a way
to collect more money.
As a consultant that has worked on projects for the state of
Massachusetts, I find it hard to believe that the government of this
commonwealth knows what is good for the industry. Also, in
correspondence with my state Attorney General Reilly, he certainly
has had some very unprofessional replies, which seems to imply that
he has taken this effort personally. The letter I received from his
office in reply to an inquiry I sent about the MS case was nothing
more than an angry juvenile rant that reeked of cynicism and offered
no legitimate arguments other than hearsay.
An Anti-MS Judgment will set a very bad precedence; it will send
the message that competitors are policing the market, not consumers.
And that the company that spends the most money lobbying the
government will come out the winner in the end. Instead of the
company that spends the most time and effort on developing a quality
product. None of the Microsoft competitors in this case have a
product that even comes close to the features and ease of use of
Microsoft products. In closing I would just like to say that during
these times of uncertainty, we should be standing strong behind our
ideals and the tools and vehicles of them. Microsoft is one of the
best examples of this Republic's Capitalism, and it should be an
encouragement of hope and Patriotism for all American's.
Sincerely,
Jason J. Withrow
D8 Al Pace Drive
North Attleboro, MA 02760
508-643-0316
[email protected]
MTC-00009221
From: Tom and/or Susan Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My message to the Attorney Generals of the nine hold-out states
concerns their winning of a major victory against Microsoft and
their refusal to let go when the fighting should stop.
There comes a time after many years of argument that settlement
should be made, not only as common sense, but as a matter of
business. Our economic concerns are not merely local, but national,
and more importantly, global. Our position concerning the freedom to
innovate involves national and international prestige, and it is in
our ``public interest'' to remain the foremost nation on earth.
Hampering one company can stifle innovation among all our computer
companies, and at any time we must remain unified in our effort to
provide the best that there is.
Sincerely,
Susan Church Moore
MTC-00009222
From: Dr. Hartmut Reh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I think that it is necessary to remedy the situation that has
been brought on BeOS due to MS's strongarm tactics . I am part of a
worldwide network that is working on getting the BeOS or equivalent
back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if the
following issues aren't addressed, for example: open Office file
formats, Win32 APIs, make dual-boot options mandatory. Furtheron it
must be possible to sell PCs with pre-installed BeOS.
Best regards
Dr. Hartmut Reh
MTC-00009223
From: kevin murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madame:
I think it is time to settle and move on. Microsoft is willing
to make the necessary changes to keep the industry competative. The
other nine states are looking for the next tobacco type settlement
and this case just isn't the same. That would be exsessive and
unwarrented. (It smells of politicial agendas.) Unlike the Antitrust
of Standard Oil early in the last century, we don't have to keep
buying Microsoft products. With Gasoline we have to buy it every
week and an anti-trust settlement of Standard Oil was warranted to
protect us from price gouging. I don't feel
[[Page 25127]]
that Microsoft could gouge us since I never have to buy another
Microsoft product as long as I live if I don't want to.
Let's wrap this one up and spend money on something else. I feel
protected from Microsoft already.
MTC-00009224
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:08pm
Subject: Let it rest
I think you have wasted enough time and money on this case. Fine
Bill and Microsoft heavily and move on. Our country is built on the
strong surviving and not hand holding the companies that can't play
in the big leagues. Maybe Netscape should have just looked at their
business model and watched the finances closer. I do not think the
Netscape guy did bad for himself since AOL purchased them. AOL is
another company that is a monopoly who put Comuserve and Protogy
basically out of business. Why don't we look into that case? What
about ComCast purchasing AT&T broadband to be the largest ISP
provider. Do you think that is in my favor? Lets focus on real
issues like economy, homelessness and joblessness. Let Microsoft
make the money they want because they provide jobs to more people
than the government can understand.
MTC-00009225
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear USDOJ and Judge Kollar-Kotelly
I AM AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT . IT IS AN INEFFECTIVE
SLAP ON THE WRIST! I expect to see the USDOJ attorneys who drafted
this sellout of the USA, working for Microsoft or it's law firms in
the future.
This is a shameful scandal that will take its place in our
govenment 's history along with the Teapot Dome Scandal and the
Watergate coverup.
I am a citizen of the USA. I have a degree in Film and
Television from NYU and a Masters Degree in Interactive Technology
in Education from Harvard. I also am President of a multimedia
company.
MICROSOFT IS ALREADY WORKING TO LEVERAGE IT'S MONOPOLY IN
OPERATING SYSTEMS AND EXTEND IT'S ANTICOMPETITIVE, PREDATORY TACTICS
AND CREATE FURTHER MONOPOLIES IN COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND GAMES,
INTERNET ACCESS AND CONTENT, VIDEOGAME SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE, COPY
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY AND UNDISCLOSED FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES
As a consumer, a technology professional and a small business
owner: I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THAT MICROSOFT IS A THREAT TO
THE SPIRIT, FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; IF IT'S CONSISTENTLY(COURT PROVEN) MONOPOLISTIC,ILLEGAL,
IMMORAL, ANTICOMPETITIVE, PREDATORY TACTICS AND ACTS ARE NOT
STOPPED!
To add insult to injury, Microsoft exhibited it's arrogant
disregard and disrespect for the citizen consumers, laws and courts
of the USA by lying in depositions and court testimony and
fraudulently misrepresenting facts in courtroom demonstrations in
the recent trial.
Clearly the citizens and governments of Seven States have the
courage to hold out for Justice. DO THE RIGHT THING, AMERICA IS
WATCHING!
THANK YOU,
William J. Roberts
34 Byron Rd, Natick, MA
1-508-650-0015
[email protected]
MTC-00009226
From: Jason Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:19pm
Subject: Public Commentary
Dear Sirs,
This letter is to express my support for the comments made in a
previous email sent by:
Ganesh Prasad
[email protected]
Dated January 1st, 2002.
You can find a copy of this letter/email on the web, here:
http://linuxtoday.com/news--story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-OP-MS
I am an experienced Network Engineer (MCSE) specializing in Network
Security. Ganesh Prasad's statements in his letter to the DOJ
reflects my own feelings about what needs to be done for justice to
be adequatly satisfied. If you have not already done so, please take
the time to read Ganesh's letter to the DOJ.
Jason Bennett--Network Engineer
Rural/Metro Corporation--Network Services
Office: (480) 606-3490
MTC-00009228
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:28pm
Subject: drop the case this is ridicuolus
there are going to be other problems the case is destined to
thrown out
MTC-00009229
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please bring an end to this ordeal. The settlement appears fair,
although I believe Microsoft has been treated unfairly from the
start. But I'll let that pass for the sake of this settlement.
Sincerely,
Mark Bodenstab
West Chester, PA
MTC-00009230
From: Randy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:31pm
Subject: DEAR SIRS,
DEAR SIRS,
AS I CONTINUE TO READ ABOUT THE ONGOING '' ANTI-TRUST '' CASE
AGAINST MICROSOFT I FIND MYSELF WONDERING THE SAME OLD QUESTION,''
WHO ACUALLY COMPLAINED '' ????.
I DO NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVER BELIEVED THAT IT WAS THE
''CONSUMER '', THAT FILED THESE COMPLAINTS. IS'NT IT THE CONSUMER
THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE PROTECTING ???? AFTERALL,IF WE WERE NOT
COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH MICROSOFT PRODUCTS I DONT IMAGINE THAT WE
WOULD PURCHASE SAID PRODUCTS. SO NOW TELL ME,WHO IS IT AGAIN,,,THAT
IS BEING HURT..
RANDY WHITE
IDAHO FALLS,IDAHO
MTC-00009231
From: Mike Pritchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion... the DOJ should back off a little. I think the
DOJ investigation is being driven by competitors of Microsoft. I
also think Microsoft's competitors are jealous because they have
been unable to duplicate Microsoft's success.
Do you remember what it was like to work with computers in the
70's and 80's??? Proprietary computers running proprietary software.
Hardware and software costs were outrageous and maintenance cost
weren't much better. Software programs were not standardized and
they didn't always play nice with each other. The philosophy of big
computer companies seemed to be, ``Do it our way or don't do it''.
Trying to get different computer to work together was very
frustrating (if not impossible).
Microsoft could have played by the same rules as everybody else
(in the computer industry). Instead, today we have standards and
tightly integrated tools for developing and running software.
I do not think Microsoft is a Monopoly. They do not own the
hardware and software (unlike Apple and IBM), and there are many
operating systems to choose from. You can run several types of UNIX,
Macintosh, OS2, etc... Most people choose MSWindows. It is quite
nice to have many tools integrated into the MS operating system.
Because of its size it may be a good idea to keep an eye on
Microsoft, but in my opinion they should get a commendation for what
they have accomplished. Microsoft has made my job easier and more
productive.
Michael A Pritchard
Access Development
Director of IS, CIO
SLC, Ut
MTC-00009232
From: paul e jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Microsoft case should be settled in
accordance with the reduced liability finding of the Court of
Appeals. As a consumer, I agree that the settlement is good for all
of us and the Government should not spend any more money with
further litigation. If you wish to receive any more detailed
comments from me, send your request to my email address.
Paul Jensen
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25128]]
MTC-00009233
From: Clay Bullwinkel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
United States Department of Justice
Dear Madams and Sirs:
Thank you for conducting and managing this call for input. No
doubt you receive thousands of emails and letters with little or no
new input, and in some cases crank content. Yet you must sift
through all of them. I myself have encouraged and led on-line debate
in the information technology industry on the Microsoft case. I hope
here to offer you a few information points which probably will be
unique and useful. I have an M.B.A. degree from Stanford and have
held executive positions in the information technology industry with
Hewlett Packard, 3Com, and now my own company E.W. Bridge LLC.
In a nutshell, Microsoft has broken the law with their
overzealous channel control tactics. You folks can forcefully and
effectively can deal with that. It should stop there. To have
considered anything further in their activities as subject to legal
scrutiny has been the concoction of their competitors, and, most
frighteningly, outsiders in government, media and others who wish to
seize influence and control in the PC industry. As you should be
already aware, the overwhelming majority of software engineers favor
a quick end to the Microsoft case with minimal intrusion of the
federal government into Microsoft's affairs. If you look at any on
line forum for the general programmer community, e.g. not
specifically Apple or Palm people, you will find this to be the
case. They especially do not want government dictating what should
or should not be in a software product. Generally speaking, these
people are the most knowledgeable about their industry. Their voice
has to carry weight. They understand the benefits and threats from
Microsoft better than any general businessman or politician. They,
as well as myself, understand that the failure of Microsoft's
competitors--Sun, Netscape (AOL), IBM, Apple, Palm, Borland, Novell,
WordPerfect, Corel, etc. etc.- has been primarily due to
mismanagement in these companies, and in some cases Microsoft's
economies of scale, and not to illegal behavior by Microsoft. All of
these companies have been plagued by lazy management lacking care
and diligence for their future. Most executives, such as myself,
understand that ruthless distribution tactics sometimes exhibited by
Microsoft are part of every Business 101 course and practiced by all
corporations in all industries, including by the companies named
above. Please remember to monitor and utilize on-line forums for
software engineers as a good source of input. Regarding the
``outsiders'' mentioned above, I could hardly be more alarmed.
If Mr. Gore had won the election, his DOJ would have continued
to try to take control of Microsoft and allocate its pieces to
cronies. The media largely avoided mentioning that the written
remedy by Mr. Jackson included installation of on-site overseers
(commissars) within the pieces of Microsoft, without restriction on
their authority. Mr. Gates would have been prevented from founding a
new company with employees from Microsoft. This was a necessary
measure because most of Microsoft's software engineers would seek to
work for him. I have done business for 18 years in the formerly
communist countries of Europe and the old U.S.S.R., and I am well
read on their history. It does not take a rocket scientist to see
that those in and outside the Department of Justice who were driving
the excessive prosecution in the Microsoft case had Bolshevist
intent, with courts replacing guns. I would bet that if you looked
into their backgrounds, for example, Mr. Klein, you would find
parents or grandparents with Soviet sympathies. In terms of threat
to American society and culture, Al-Qaida is but a drop compared to
that kind of bucket of trouble. In the mid-90's I met a DOJ attorney
who questioned me about a company with which I dealt which had
fairly obviously set prices with a competitor causing a few billion
dollars in overcharges to customers. I said yes, I knew about it,
and was even present when one of their key executives bragged about
it. He told me a few days later to tell me to forget about what he
asked me and not to repeat what I had said. I asked him why. He said
that his bosses told him that the company was not to be a target,
that it had untouchable status. So these are the people and methods
which brought us the Microsoft case. I wish your Mr. Charles James
well in his current ``housecleaning'' of personnel and procedures.
May it last beyond the current administration, and be resistant to
political tendencies of whatever party is in the White House.
Sincerely,
Clay A. Bullwinkel
President
E.W. Bridge LLC
70 Bear Gulch Drive
Portola Valley, California 94028 USA
tel. (650) 851-7421 fax (650) 851-0956
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
MTC-00009234
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case. It is good for me, the
industry, and the American economy.
Ann Bobrow
MTC-00009235
From: Xavier Gu(00E9)rin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi!
I'm a french BeOS developper, and I've decided to write this e-
mail in trying to be the most honnest I could never be. Micro$oft
used to have some commercial technics punished by the antitrust law.
It's not a fable, but those technics are so hided that they could
appears like fables. M$ have encouraged the piracy (not in a visible
manner, but I'll never believe that an entreprise able to develop an
OS couldn't do better software protection), and in this way M$
killed his enemies. In fact, around 90's, someone who would buy an
office suite was able to buy many different kind of suite (like
lotus, corel ....). The question was althought : ``Hmmm, MS Office
is really expensive.... I prefer buy Lotus Note''. Now, this
question is totally different! ``Hmmm, MS Office is too expensive...
No matter! I will burn it''. You follow?
It's with this sort of technics that Microsoft win the OS and
Offices suite market, and it's whith this sort of technics that
Micro$oft killed our beloved BeOS.
Thank you for your attention, and do the justice like the USA is
knowed pretend to do it : in the better way.
Friendly,
Xavier Guirin.
MTC-00009236
From: Rick Connell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:50pm
I am an average citizen. Not affiliated with Microsoft in any
way. I feel that this whole anti-trust lawsuit is stupid. In our
efforts to have a level playing field we have doomed those that
would excel. Is it accurate that in our country it is alright to try
and to succeed mildly, but not to compete? We as a nation have taken
a thought or a notion and, as usual, distorted and perverted it to
an embarrassing degree in order to perpetuate what we at one time
thought was right. So now this noble notion is a bloody sledgehammer
robbing from us what is truly rare. A company that can operate dept
free. That contributes to our economy, instead of drains it...how
sad.
Rick Connell
San Angelo, Texas
MTC-00009237
From: Doug Gorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
...a few special interests are attempting to use this review
period to derail the settlement and prolong this litigation even in
the midst of uncertain economic times. The last thing the American
economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy
competitors and stifles innovation.
dg
MTC-00009238
From: Sharon Corboy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 2:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I find it difficult for state attorney generals carrying on a
political war against Microsoft. this case should be settled and
now. each one of these a.g. have a political motive. to further
there on futures. if they want to carry on they should do so at
there on expense. please get on with the job of a quick settlement
Thomas corboy 3921 forest beach n.w. gig harbor wash.
MTC-00009239
From: Cameron Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:04pm
Subject: Help
[[Page 25129]]
Microsoft has done more good for the nations economy than all
government employees and officers combined. Microsoft should be
praised not published or investigated for it accomplishments and
valuable products it has created for consumers.
Cameron Taylor
Executive Director
NFTPAP
1-800-375-2453
1-801-374-1287 fax
2230 N. University Pkwy Bldg 5
Provo, UT 84604
MTC-00009240
From: John Weis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It's about time to get this settled and stop interfering with
the capitalistic version of voting with your feet.
If Microsoft were not the consumers choice they would not be the
success that they are. Stop harrassment now let the consumer decide.
MTC-00009241
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:12pm
Subject: Settlement is called for
Gentlemen:
It is important to the economy to get this thing settled. I feel
that Microsoft has been harrassed enough and only because some
people are jealous of its huge success. I do not see how marketing
one's product can be unfair in the first place. I am sure no one had
a gun held to their head! But prolonging this very unfair affair
hurts everyone from the consumer to the employees, not only of
Microsoft, but other companies as well. I feel personally, that this
case should never have happened in the first place.
Dorothy A. O'Flaherty
Enumclaw, Wa.
MTC-00009242
From: Humphrey, Robert J
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 3:10pm
Subject: Another MA Bell
Seems like every time someone builds a better mouse trap the
government steps in to take it away or makes them re-design it. Bill
Gates simply built a product that became so good that no one wanted
what the other guys were offering. And the other guys started
crying.
Bill Gates has returned far more to society than he every took
away.
MTC-00009243
From: Max
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear DOJ:
A dilute remedy to the case (as initially proposed) goes beyond
erosion of our justice system. Microsoft is imparting a continuous
flow of damage on Information Technology--damage that has already
impacted individuals like you and me.
Their history shows clearly that any ``Go Forth and Sin No
More'' resolution will be laughed at within the Company. Moreover,
any resolution that requires a new Federal Agency to monitor their
behavior will place a new burden on the Taxpayer.
Is the Taxpayer the rightful bearer of this burden ?
Max Gratzl
Engineer
MTC-00009244
From: Pierce, Ben
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs/madams,
I have been following the Microsoft case for some time now. It
has come to my attention that the Department of Justice has reached
a settlement with Microsoft. After reading excerpts of this
settlement I have come to the conclusion that this settlement is
severely insufficient As was found by the Courts, and upheld in the
appellate court, Microsoft is guilty of illegally maintaining a
monopoly. A guilty verdict suggests that there would be a punishment
for Microsoft that would try to curb its ability to commit this
crime in the future. The settlement that was proposed does not do
this. In fact, this settlement may encourage Microsoft to commit
further illegal actions in order to create a more profitable
corporation.
Microsoft has a history of unethical business practices. I find
it absurd that I am unable to purchase a PC from most mainstream
manufacturer's without purchasing Microsoft Software. Not only is it
impossible to purchase a computer without Microsoft Windows, but
most computers are required to come with several other programs
whose genre Microsoft has used it's monopoly to push it's way into
as well, including: Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet Explorer,
Microsoft Net meeting, and Microsoft Media Player.
It is clear to see that in spite of the ruling of illegality,
Microsoft is unwilling to curb it's appetite for using it's
operating system to gain footing in many other facets of the
software industry. In closing, I ask this court to throw out the
settlement reached by Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I
also ask the Court to let the Department of Justice know that any
settlement that does not let Microsoft know that it will no longer
be acceptable to maintain it's illegal and unethical practices will
be unacceptable.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Benjamin Pierce
MTC-00009245
From: Dewey W. Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:24pm
Subject: American Company
One truly American Company with roots of building the computer
industry and providing a standard for the world should not be
discredited by those who feel they were cheated a part of the pie.
The truth is they did not have the products to compete.
Dt
MTC-00009246
From: Heidi Blumenthal
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
microsoft doj comments lthd.doc>>
January 7, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
I work closely with economic leaders and grassroots taxpayer
activists across this nation and I must point out that these free-
market activists and leaders are virtually unanimous in their
criticism of this trial.
Conservatives do not believe the government should be writing
software, or picking the winners and losers in this industry. They
understand that this effort to regulate the software industry is bad
for the economy and the free market. These tactics are an anathema
to business executives who understand free and fair competition is
what drives companies to create better products and keeps America in
the forefront of the digital economy.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views, and those of
over 60,000 taxpaying activists.
Onward,
Grover G. Norquist
MTC-00009247
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is a good for everyone except those seeking to
obtain more benefit for themselves than for consumers at large.
Since you are asking for opinions, I believe Microsoft is
largely a victim of overzealous prosecution and a biased trial
Judge. The only ones hurt by the settlement are the few state
attorney generals who have not settled
[[Page 25130]]
for personal reasons (political gain) and Microsoft's competitors
who, incidentally, conduct themselves the same as Microsoft.
The Appeals Court should have given Microsoft a new trial. As a
citizen the whole case shocked and troubled me. If I owned or
operated a company and was accused of wrongdoing, I would expect, at
a minimum, a fair and impartial trial and opportunity to prepare my
case. Microsoft was given less than 6 months to prepare for trial,
limited in its witnesses (although the trial judge said he would
``consider'' any reasonable request) and was the victim of some
seriously questionable evidentiary and procedural rulings at trial.
Even car accident defendants get a more equitable trial and more
opportunity to prepare in a state court action than Microsoft
received in this Federal Court action involving billions of dollars
and thousands of people. Why the trial Judge was biased against
Microsoft will forever be a mystery but from his statements in and
out of court the bias was obvious.
Any wrongdoings (if any) by Microsoft are adequately addressed
by settlement.
The country and its consumers will benefit from this settlement.
I urge the parties and the court to pursue settlement of the
remaining claims on similar terms.
MTC-00009248
From: Louella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:35pm
Subject: RE: TUNNEY ACT
My personal feelings in regards to the Microsoft settlement, is
that enough is enough!! The settlement that has been made is
agreeable to most and that should be sufficient.
I, for one, am sick and tired of my tax dollars being squandered
on merry little trifles while people in the U.S. are homeless &
hungry. We pay taxes & then are supposed to help these causes with
our donations!! Leave well enough alone!! Put our tax dollars to
work for us constructively & STOP spending your time & our money
trying to tear down!!!!!
Just remember, we not only pay taxes......WE VOTE!! With the new
awareness in America today, the goverment better hold on tight when
it comes time for the next election!!!! You have spent millions so
far getting to the settlement you now have w/ Microsoft, leave it
alone........it should be a done deal!!
Sincerely,
LouElla B. Williams
MTC-00009250
From: james arnstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:40pm
Subject: 9 States vs Microsoft AntiTrust Case
Dear Sir,
I think the demands that the 9 states are attempting to place on
Microsoft as punishment for their ``anti trust'' practices are
ludicrous. The hidden corporate motives of various Microsoft
competitors, all trying to disrupt and destroy Microsoft's market
positions, are the real culprits. Let the consumer dictate what they
want in the market place and not the attorney generals from the 9
states trying to break up the business practices of Microsoft.
Thank you,
James Arnstein
MTC-00009251
From: Kinsella, Mary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft
Gentlemen: Bill Gates and his Microsoft team have revolutionized
computer use. This is no small thing. Nothing in our world is the
same thanks to the ease of use of the Microsoft products. I'm not
saying there weren't any other important players because there were,
however, in my view Microsoft was the absolute catalyst for it all,
the information highway, the information age, the whole ball of wax.
Rather than penalizing them over nitpicky stuff, we should really be
giving Gates and his cohorts some kind of award. Bill Gates and
Microsoft have changed the way we work, the way we live. Another
plus which hasn't yet been acknowledged or reached fruition is that
there are innumerable people who previously couldn't even type,
didn't know a keyboard from a calculator, who are now clicking away,
traveling the information highway, finding useful information,
planning their life events, and without intending to becoming
proficient at keyboarding and absorbing way more information than
they realize. Their life skills and possibly job skills are
improving due to the prolific distribution and reasonable pricing of
Microsoft products, not to mention the 'free' added in products like
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Photo Editor. I've never
heard one real (from the horses mouth) story about Microsoft people
being coercive in fact I've heard just the opposite. It's my humble
opinion that the law and the DOJ is being manipulated by Microsoft's
enemies who will use you as a cat's paw to destroy the man, Bill
Gates, who may be the greatest mind of our time. Many years ago a
poet said he had seen the best minds of his generation destroyed by
madness. I'd have to say I see the best mind of my generation being
destroyed by jealousy and concerted legal malice. Please note that
this is my personal opinion only, and not necessarily the opinion of
my employer. May God's own wisdom aid you in making your decisions
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary T. Kinsella
22 Rockhill Street
Foxboro, MA 02035
MTC-00009252
From: Robert Pretlow, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am a pediatrician, and I manage two humanitarian health
websites for children, one for bedwetting at http://
www.wetbusters.com, and one for overweight children at http://
www.blubberbusters.com. Approximately 60,000 children per month use
the two sites. There are an estimated 7 million children with
bedwetting in the U.S. and 15 million overweight children. These
websites allow children affected with bedwetting or obesity to learn
about their problem and to anonymously interact, via chat rooms,
with other children affected with the same problem. There are social
stigmas attached to these conditions, and chat rooms allow the
children to interact in a way not possible in face-to-face life.
Both of these sites use Java software (Sun Microsystems) for
educational applications and for chat rooms. Again, chat rooms are
highly valued by children with socially stigmatized conditions
because of the anonymity of chat rooms. There is no other chat room
software comparable to Java. Java also allows monitoring of the chat
rooms to insure child safety. Previous versions of Microsoft Windows
have included Java, but Microsoft Corporation has now decided to no
longer include Java with their new version, Windows XP. Therefore,
to use our chat rooms and educational areas, children with Windows
XP computers must now first download Java, a process that is
complicated and time consuming (15-20 minutes with a 56K modem).
Moreover, with typical 56K dialup access, the connection may be
interrupted before the download is completed.
Below is an email from a 12-year-old boy with bedwetting (who
uses the wetbusters site):
Subject: hi
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:08:30 EST
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
i have the new windows XP and i can't get in the room it say i
don't have a java browser. what do i do.
Tony
Subsequent emails from this child indicate that neither he nor
his family is unable to understand how to download Java:
no i did not down loda it because it did not ask me if i want to
down load the java browser.
Tony
mom and dad had to get a computer guy to put a java browser on
my computer. the computer guy loaded netscape so i could have a java
browser on my windows XP.
Tony
Children using America Online with Windows XP do not receive a
screen message that they must download Java. Moreover, if they are
able to download Java, they are no longer able to use Java
applications in AOL's browser environment. They must now use
Microsoft Internet Explorer or install Netscape Navigator.
I have also been in the process of creating an interactive
website for children with asthma, of whom there are 20 million
children in the U.S., and who have the same social isolation issues
as children with obesity and bedwetting. I have, however, currently
abandoned the children's asthma site because of the Windows XP Java
issue. I feel that Microsoft's decision to no longer include Java in
the Windows operating system constitutes a significant hardship for
thousands of users. Even though I have been a substantial Microsoft
stockholder since its initial public offering, I feel that the lack
of Java inclusion in Windows XP places an
[[Page 25131]]
unfair barrier for users of chat rooms and other Java applications.
Because Microsoft is allowed to have a monopoly on the PC
operating system, I feel that Microsoft has a responsibility to not
abandon consumers. Microsoft should therefore be required to include
Java with the Windows operating system.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the above matter.
Yours truly,
Robert A. Pretlow, MD, FAAP
eHealth International, Inc.
5406-K Lake Washington Blvd. N.E.
Kirkland, WA 98033
phone: 425-827-3719
MTC-00009253
From: Henry Sharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:55pm
Subject: proposed settlement
I am disappointed that our government has not proceeded with
serious action against Microsoft's anti-trust suit. Microsoft
continues to flout the government and run their monopolistic
practices and the justice department is doing nothing to stop them.
Harriet Sharp
1165 Harbor Hills Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
MTC-00009254
From: Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have designed industrial intruments and other products since
1970. As an independent consultant, it is necessary for my work to
be installed and read by my customers' systems. So, I struggle to
stay in business because I cannot afford the continual drain on my
time and physical energy that results from Microsoft's periodic
Operating Systems woes and planned product obsolescense. At the same
time, I cannot provide reports and data to my clients unless I
continue to remain up to date with my Microsoft software.
For the record, I started using Microsoft when it was Windows
3.1. I have changed to the next version reluctantly, and only at the
point in time when Microsoft refused to continue its support of the
prior product. That migration path wound through Windows 3.10,
3.10a, Windows 95, NT3.51, and NT4.0. I stare into the near future
with dread: Windows XP is not for me, but I don't know what else I
may be able to do. At each change, Microsoft collects more money.
With each version, I spend no less than 100 hours getting my
equipment to work again, sometimes finding that a printer (or other
decvice) is no longer ``supported'' by Microsoft's latest product
and must be replaced.
Mr. Gates is a pioneer. His company has found a method by which
he can deliver a product that isn't finished yet, charge more for it
than it will ever be worth, and have his quality assurance testing
conducted by paying customers. The only partial success I have
enjoyed is that I have avoided using Internet Explorer or Microsoft
Outlook. Even without all those security problems (read, design
defects), other Microsoft products have consumed far too much of my
time and patience.
The existing settlement seems to me a bald faced sellout. I
would like to see my government (Federal as well as State) do more
than cower uncertainly before such a large potlitical contributor .
. . who also happens to have been guilty of breaking the law. I
would sincerely hope that we may find a restored balance in our
priorities: it is an old principle of law that one who abuses the
law should not benefit from that abuse. I would love to see that
attitude regain its earlier vitality.
David E. Myer, Sr.
Vice President
Crow Feather Ent., Inc.
Innovation & Intellectual Property
MTC-00009255
From: Mader, John
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 3:55pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
To whom it may concern
I feel that if the present settlement is allowed to stand
(Microsoft allowed to continue shipping their applications bundled
with their operating system) the consumer will have to pay the cost
of mitigation. With the clout that the operating system gives
Microsoft they will be able to move into any lucrative software
market after other firms develop those markets. This pattern is very
evident (i.e. Java, Palm, Sun). Eventually most of the other players
will be pushed out of the market, and Microsoft will be successful
in creating a barrier to the software market. This loss of
competition will not serve the interest of the American people. I
ask the court to break Microsoft into 2 or more companies.
John Mader
10228 Gatemont Circle
Elk Grove Ca. 95624
MTC-00009256
From: john was
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:02pm
Subject: stop it already
Please stop this travisty of justice. Enough is enough of this
capitalism hating antitrust law suit. I my self am not wealthy and
probably wont ever be but I dont begrudge someone who has the where
with all to achieve what microsoft has done. Show some common scence
and put and end to this garbage once and for all.
MTC-00009257
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:01pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
LET'S SETTLE THIS STUPID ATTACK ON MICROSOFT NOW.
MTC-00009258
From: Bill Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:02pm
Subject: comments on microsoft judgement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
CC: Dennis Powell, Steve Coe,Tony Charoen,Laurence Hunt...
Gentlemen:
First, I'd like to thank you for allowing this period of
``public comment'' on the Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement. I have
taken the liberty of cc'ing a few of my closest friends scattered
``hither and yon'' around the globe as well as a ``Linux Columnist''
because I think this really is an International, as well as very
important, issue that should not be restricted to the views of a few
people, or to ``Americans Only.'' I suppose an appropriate beginning
would be to talk a bit about my qualifications. First and foremost I
am not an attorney. I am a ``computer professional'' with over 20
years of experience of all kinds in the ``computer industry'' and
have worked on equipment ranging from mainframe computers (using
punched cards as input and output) to stand-alone and networked
PC's. I have a BBA in Computer Information Systems (Cum Laude) from
National University in San Diego, CA from 1985. And an AS in Data
Processing from San Diego City College. Since the fall of 1980 when
I began classes at San Diego City College I have worked on many
different types of hardware, and used many different Operating
Systems. Back in the early 80's the world of the PC was still a
``wild and wooly'' kind of place. Many OS's and computer hardware
philosophies existed to provide an environment where the end user
had an incredible amount of choice. I have, as a computer
professional, essentially ``grown up'' along with the PC. I have
watched the hardware side of things advance rapidly from the
``turbo'' PC XT clone of my first system (10 MHz!), 640KB RAM (which
according to Bill Gates at the time 'should be enough for anybody')
and no hard drive at all to the situation today where a 1 GHz
processor and 128MB of RAM (and a 20GB hard drive) is considered
routine. I have watched as the business world embraced PC technology
with open arms. To make them ``more productive'' and to cut costs
(as compared to mainframes). I have watched while the PC was
``standardized'' to be a ``Microsoft-Only'' machine in so far as the
OS and most applications suites are concerned. I have seen, for more
than two decades now, the kind of company Microsoft is, and the kind
of business practices that they consider to be ``acceptable'' I find
to be so abhorrent I will do almost anything to avoid putting money
into their pockets. Unfortunately, as a ``computer professional,'' I
find myself, more often than I'd like to think about, in the
situation of having to recomend and then support Microsoft products
because of the almost universal perception that ``the Microsoft Way
is the Only Way'' and most companies will not even consider anything
else. Even now.
There have been ``alternatives'' to Microsoft products all
along. Back in the days of MS DOS there were products such as CP/M,
4DOS, and DR-DOS. But one thing Microsoft has always been a master
at. Marketing.
They managed to convince the PC makers to include the MS DOS OS
with every new system sold. Once PC's started being sold with hard
drives installed it was even easier
[[Page 25132]]
to do this as Microsoft went to the companies (politely at first,
the strong-arm stuff came later) and managed to get them to sign
``exclusive'' agreements with Microsoft.
These ``exclusive'' agreements meant that NO competitors OS
software (or applications software for that matter) could be
installed on any system sold. And of course, you could not sell a PC
with NO OS installed.
According to Microsoft this was to ``stop piracy'' but in
reality it was a ploy to make Microsoft, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and
all the rest of them so filthy RICH that it is more than obscene.
How ``powerful'' is Microsoft? Consider the case of OS/2 and IBM for
an answer to that. IBM is hardly what one could consider a ``small
company'' and easily pushed around by anybody. According to
documents published already from the DOJ's Microsoft Anti-Trust
Trial even a company the size of IBM was ``forced'' to sign
``exclusive agreements'' with Microsoft to include a copy of Windows
95 with every PC sold, or not have a ``license'' to sell Windows 95
at all. If a company the size of IBM has ``no choice'' then the rest
of the software and computer industry is pretty well screwed isn't
it?
Today, Microsoft has a lot of very real competition. This is as
it should be. For server and other ``back office'' applications
Linux is ``kicking tail'' and that's only going to improve. However,
if the U.S. Government ``gives in'' to Microsoft on this Anti-Trust
Settlement, and you need to understand that the view ``from the
street'' is that you are doing EXACTLY that very thing, then
Microsoft is going to go on, just as before, and absolutely NOTHING
will have been gained from the long, and expensive, anti-trust
trial.
Red Hat Linux http://www.redhat.com> has offered to take the
proposal that Microsoft provide it's OS and apps software to the
``14,000 poorest U.S. School Districts'' one better. They have
offered to take the money that would have been spent for the
Microsoft OS and apps software, and use that to invest in more
hardware for the schools instead.
The money can be used to provide a rather substantial increase
in the number of computers provided to the school districts. Red Hat
has agreed to ``provide Open Source solutions'' which include Red
Hat Linux and any applications needed (perhaps the Star Office
suite--a ``worthy replacement'' for MS Office in every way) and this
will be something that is not going to require going back in a few
years to ``upgrade'' all of those systems because the OS and
applications software licenses will have expired.
Open Source is about Freedom. Freedom of Choice in just about
everything. Linux is an excellent and probably the best known
example of this. The Linux Kernel is ``hacked'' (coded) by people
all over the world. It all flows through a small group of people
(including Linus Torvalds, the creator) who ensure that there is
``control'' over what gets put in, what doesn't, and to ensure a
central place to keep track of what bugs yet need squashing.
With Linux, you can run at the command line, or under X Windows
(a graphical environment or GUI). If you run X Windows you then have
a plethora of ``environments'' to choose from and run. GNOME or KDE
(both quite legitimate competitors to the MS Windows environment) or
perhaps a ``light weight'' Window Manager such as IceWM (my personal
favorite) or the well-regarded Enlightenment Window Manager.
The point is that with Linux, and with Open Source, you get a
tremendous amount of choice ``built-in'' and it has always been
there. With Microsoft the only ``choice'' you get is to open your
wallet, when they tell you to, and to pay them what they tell you
to, or to not use their products. If everyone else is using their
products this can be ``a bit of a problem'' to put it politely.
There are other issues as well. One of the things keeping Linux from
being even more widely accepted than it already is has to do with
the fact that when the consumer goes to buy a PC it is REQUIRED--
still--to have a Microsoft OS on it. The consumer is not told how
much of the cost of the system is due to the OS. The consumer is not
told that they have any choice in the matter at all.
This needs to be changed, dramatically. Ideally when a consumer
walks into a computer store he would be shown ``that system in the
window'' advertized for $499 and then it would go something like
this:
Salesman: OK sir, we need to discuss how you'd like your system
setup. What OS would you like?
Customer: What do you have available? What's the cost? What's
included?
Salesman: We have Windows XP, Red Hat Linux, or you can get the
system with no OS at all and install whatever you'd like when you
get home.
If you want Windows XP that would add $150 to the price for the
``home'' version, and $250 for the ``professional'' version. We can
install it for you free. You won't get a CD. And that includes no
``office'' or ``development'' software. If you want to add that we
can discuss your needs so I help you with that. Also, you will have
to go to Microsoft to get your OS ``activated'' after it's
installed. You have 30 days to do that or it stops working.
If you want Red Hat Linux (the Deluxe Boxed set) it will add
about $80 to the price. Red Hat Linux comes with 6 CD's containg the
OS, the Source Code for that, and a host of applications software of
all types. We can also install that for you for free.
Also, you need to know that, by default, the system has a ``win-
modem'' installed. What that means is that it will only work with a
version of the Windows OS. If you want a ``real'' modem that will
work with any OS then we have an internal 56K modem for $50 and an
external for $120.
Customer: I never realized before how expensive it was to have
Windows! What's the deal with this modem that won't work with
anything else? That doesn't sound right to me. How hard is it to use
Linux? Do you have classes for that?
Salesman: Yes sir, it can be kind of expensive to run Windows.
The ``win-modem'' is a cheap modem that uses ``software'' to do part
of the job ``hardware'' used to do routinely. It uses about 15% of
the system resources to do that on average. It is much cheaper
though at only $25 instead of $50 for the internal modem.
Linux can be kind of difficult to learn at first. But yes sir,
we do have classes in Linux. We can also discuss what your needs are
going to be and we can do all the installation and almost all the
setup of it here in the store for you. Just like Windows.
Once it's installed and properly configured Linux is really no
more difficult to run than Windows is. I think you'll find many
things to like about Linux once you give it a try.
So what would you like to do sir?
Customer: I think I'll take the Red Hat Linux, installed, and
the external modem as well. And I'd like to talk about getting some
of those classes you mentioned.
Salesman: Yes Sir! I think you'll be happy with the choice
you've made. Let's talk about getting you scheduled for some of
those Linux user classes. Would evening or on the weekend better
suit your schedule?
In an ideal world, this is what would happen. I've used Red Hat
Linux as an example only. Could just as well be SuSE, Debian,
Slackware or Mandrake Linux. Or something from another OS maker.
BeOS. FreeBSD. or a host of others.
I think that if Microsoft is ``punished'' by putting their OS
and applications software into the 14,000 poorest school districts
in America then they are not actually being punished at all. The
school districts are now pawns in a ploy to get Microsoft on every
school desktop in America. If Red Hat Linux is taken up on their
offer to substitute Open Source applications and OS software there
is going to be, of necessity, an absolutely vital long-term benefit
to this nation, and the world, that no one seems to realize. The
students are going to be exposed at an early age to the ``Open
Source Attitude'' and that is something worthwhile in my opinion.
Also, if you go to Linuxdot.Org http://www.linuxdot.org> you'll
find a couple of columns I've written. One of them, on ``OS
Arrogance'' I think it is, has a link to an article where a
description of the School System of Mexico choosing to use ``Open
Source'' and how that has gone so far. Personally, I think that if
``Open Source'' and Linux is ``good enough'' for the schools in
Mexico then it is surely ``good enough'' for the Public Schools in
the United States as well. In a world where ``the 'net'' is almost
everywhere, it is important that this ``punishment'' of Microsoft be
seen in the larger context that it is actually a part of. The World
Community. Not just the United States. For something of this
magnitude ``national borders'' are irrelevant. Left unsaid until now
is the absolutely horrific ``security'' aspects of just about any
Microsoft OS or application you'd care to name. To call the quality
of Microsoft's products ``shoddy'' is about as accurate as
describing ``gang rape'' as ``an amusing Saturday evening
diversion''. Microsoft released Windows 2000 to the world with a
list of ``known bugs'' that totaled over 67,000. This is what they
``knew about'' and released anyway. Microsoft doesn't really care
about security. All they care about is money.
Want proof? Do like I did. Subscribe to a few internet mailing
lists on security issues (like the one from CERT) and you will find
again and again ``exploits'' against Microsoft products. Microsoft
products keep the ``anti-virus'' makers in business all by
themselves.
[[Page 25133]]
Microsoft, even when someone takes the time and trouble to
describe to them EXACTLY what the exploit is, how to use it, and (in
many cases) how to ``plug the hole'' simply can not be bothered to
even respond to the person letting them know. Let alone actually
taking the time and trouble to work on making ``security'' holes
disappear in their products. In the Linux world of course things are
different. Linux, like any other OS or application, has it's own set
of problems. Linux though, since it's ``Open Source'' has a huge
advantage. Anyone that wishes to can take the source, fix a bug they
found, and submitt that back to the ``Linux Community'' at large
almost instantly.
In practical terms this means that when an ``exploit'' is
discovered in Linux there is a ``fix'' available for it in a matter
of only a couple of days. Many times, it's available in a matter of
hours. Word is put out on where to get it, and how to install it.
Almost before most people even knew that there was ``a problem'' it
has already been fixed.
Microsoft, on the other hand, quite routinely takes weeks or
months to ``fix'' whatever security hole we are talking about. If
they do so at all. Many of the people that write virsuses to
``attack'' Windows do so because Microsoft has quite routinely
ignored these problems in the past. If you have a ``known exploit''
that has been around for months and you know that Microsoft is not
about to take one minute of their time, or spend one dollar of their
money, fixing something like that then it becomes ridiculously easy
to have something like the ``Melissa'' Virus spreading like wildfire
all over the world.
If Microsoft is forced to compete on an equal basis with
everyone else then Microsoft is going down the tubes, in a hurry,
because Microsoft has never in it's life tried to compete on an
equal footing with anyone and wouldn't have the slighest idea how to
go about doing that. ``Freedom of Choice'' is one of the Open Source
Credo's. Unspoken or not. Let's make it the ``rule of law'' so far
as Microsoft is concerned as well please. I'd like to close with a
short bit about ``standards.'' Both the ``real'' and the
``Microsoft'' variety. ``Real'' standards of course are just that.
Standards that a majority of knowledgeable people from around the
world have agreed on ``yes, this is how this will work'' and
everyone knows that this is how things will work.
``Microsoft'' standards are standards because Microsoft says so.
Microsoft is an ``old pro'' at taking ``real'' standards, like XML,
and ``improving'' it. Microsoft's idea of an ``improvement'' however
usually is along the lines of ``it only works with Microsoft
products'' now. I recently read a bit of news where the Opera web
browser was not able to connect to a portion of the MSN.com site
unless it was configured to tell the server it was ``Internet
Explorer.'' Opera allows you to ``tweak'' many things. Including how
to present itself to the web server. So long as ``I.E.'' was
selected Opera users could access anyplace on the site. When it was
telling the server that it was, in fact, Opera, a cryptic message
about ``upgrading your browser'' and quite specifically mentioning
I.E. was displayed instead.
Microsoft claims that it was ``an accident'' and it was soon
enough fixed. But it does much to show what the thinking of
Microsoft is as regards the Internet, and standards for the
Internet. I believe that Microsoft should be forced to adhere to
standards that are really standards. I also believe that they should
be forced to not only document their Windows API calls, but also to
document their file formats. In particular their ``*.doc'' format.
This is something that changes all the time. Also, Microsoft should
be forced to document all the ``improvements'' they've made to
``standards'' such as XML, and other Internet related ``standards''
that they have ``improved.'' As a company Microsoft wouldn't know
``innovation'' if it came up and bit them. All they know is how to
take ideas someone else had, put it in a pretty wrapper, declare it
to be the result of ``years of research and development work'' and
then expect people to pay whatever they decide to charge.
We need to put a stop to this. If not for Microsoft and their
decidedly ``anti-competitive'' nature the computing industry could
be years ahead of where we are now. You have the power, and the
opportunity, to make historic changes that will not only affect us,
but indeed will affect most of the world in one fashion or another.
Please do not ``roll over'' for Microsoft. No matter how much
money, or how many lawyers they throw at you. Let's see ``justice''
actually be just that for a change.
Thank you.
MTC-00009259
From: Don Bogart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:50pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Software Marketing Center, LLC
4149 Winfield Road
Columbus, Ohio 43220
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I believe that it was a tremendously important and beneficial
decision for the Department of Justice to have settled the case
against Microsoft. Having spent the past twenty years in the
software business, I can attest to the positive impact that
Microsoft and other innovative companies have had in contributing to
the remarkable productivity gains which helped to generate a robust
national economy for many years. Without this leadership and
technological advantage, our country would be far less able to
succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
I think that the current settlement is fair to both sides. I was
happy to learn that The State of Ohio is ready to settle the case.
Further litigation and congressional hearings would benefit no one
but Microsoft's competitors. I support the settlement, and hope to
see it finalized soon.
Sincerely,
Donald Bogart
President
Software Marketing Center, LLC
MTC-00009260
From: Eberhard Hafermalz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:05pm
Subject: Settlement with MicroSoft
Dear Sir/Madam
Following a request by Helmar Rudolph who is part of the
BeUnited Team and with whom a DOJ person has talked on January 4,
2002, I would like to submit my views on what is necessary to remedy
the damage done to the market for PC operating systems (OS) by
MicroSoft.
I am not a developer but a user of the BeOS, an alternative
operating system widely acclaimed for its potential as a desktop OS.
I would like to stress that the BeOS never has taken off as a widely
used OS on the PC market. Not because it does not have the
potential; there is publicly available numerous evidence to the
contrary. The BeOS has died because computer makers were not allowed
to pre-install this OS on their systems instead of or even alongside
a MicroSoft OS, thus precluding a broad distribution. It is a known
fact that computer makers declined the offer of Be, Inc., the maker
of BeOS, to ship their machines with the BeOS pre-installed because
this would invoke the respective punitive clauses in the licensing
agreement they had with MicroSoft.
Further, when installing a MicroSoft OS onto a computer already
equipped with the BeOS (or any other OS), the MicroSoft OS wipes the
so-called bootblock, resulting in the computer only booting into the
MicroSoft OS afterwards. As is well known, MicroSoft OSs are prone
to get unusable after a short period of time, requiring extensive
maintenance which more often than not is easiest done by re-
installing the whole system. This obviously invokes the bootblock
problem every time a re-install is conducted.
These two issues alone make it almost impossible for the average
computer user to (a) acquire a non-MicroSoft OS running computer,
and (b) maintain a dual-boot system where one of the OSs is a
MicroSoft one. The remedy for issue (a) would be to disallow
MicroSoft in clear terms the use of any contractual clauses in their
licensing agreements that restrict the decision of the computer
maker on what OS, if any, to ship with the computer they
manufacture.
The remedy for issue (b) is to disallow MicroSoft the
overwriting of the bootblock when Windows (or another MicroSoftware)
is installed. This is technically possible by giving the user the
choice which systems to boot into. Resolving issue (b) is in fact
complementary to issue (a) for the reasons explained above;
otherwise MicroSoft would be allowed to abuse their dominant market
position by simply accomplishing at a later point in time what they
have been denied at the manufacturer's stage: killing the competing
OS on the same computer.
In light of the MicroSoft strategy of the past, the above is not
the only remedy I think necessary because it would only create a
level playing field. MicroSoft would be allowed to maintain the
fruit of their previous unfair competition practice. Thus it appears
justified to require MicroSoft to cede proprietary information in
areas where it has acquired a de-facto monopoly by way of
[[Page 25134]]
utilizing advantages from their unfair competitive behavior. Most
importantly, this includes the ``office'' part of the company's
business. MicroSoft Office is the standard because Office was
pressed onto the consumer as ``part of Windows'', which--as well as
the Internet Explorer--it is not. MicroSoft thus utilized the
practice described above to eliminate any competitor in this
software segment.
In order for rival makers of office software to compete they
need the information required to create translators, software add-
ons (``plug-ins'' in Windows-speak) that allow the competing
software to import from and export files to MicroSoft Office (and
other) formats. I would like to point out that in order to
accomplish this it is not required that MicroSoft open their source
code of Windows, MicroSoft Office, or any other software.
Moreover, I would like to bring to your attention that it is not
only Windows, and MicroSoftware running on Windows, that needs to be
included in a settlement. MicroSoft is already showing the same
patterns of behavior as before in the market for handheld computers.
Also they are obviously trying to delay any remedial action against
the Windows monopoly in the desktop computer market until Windows is
no longer their main productline. Any settlement that is to create
and ensure a level playing field in the longer term not only needs
to remove the Windows monopoly but at the same time include any
future OS or, indeed, software MicroSoft might sell, be it ``.Net''
software, Windows CE/Stinger, or any other product.
Finally, please revise your stance on the issue of MicroSoft's
``giving away freely'' computers, software, and service for these to
schools. This is no remedy but an opportunity. It will create a new
market for the company. These days MicroSoft's power to abuse their
position stems from the very fact that for most people the term
``computer'' automatically means ``Windows'', i.e. MicroSoft.
Letting MicroSoft ``make good'' for their abusive behavior by
opening one of the few places where competing OS maker Apple still
holds a better than insignificant market share would mean, as we say
in Germany, to try to expel the devil with the Beelzebub.
The fate of innovation is at stake. Innovation cannot come from
a company that has been holding the monopoly for almost ten years
now. There is much better, much more innovative software out there
than MicroSoft one but it will never have a chance.
Unless MicroSoft is forced to give it that chance.
Thank you for your attention.
Faithfully yours
Eberhard Hafermalz
MTC-00009261
From: Accounting
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft
I support the microsoft settlement
MTC-00009262
From: Accounting
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Microsoft Settlement. Stop wasting taxpayers
money. Microsoft has done more for computer technology than any
other company in the world. Leave them alone.
MTC-00009263
From: Sara Peters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is time to settle the Microsoft case and let them get
on with their business. This has gone on too long. I hope to read
where a settlement has been reached and then that will be the end of
this case.
Sincerely,
Sara Peters
MTC-00009264
From: Jason W Stiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am currently participating in worldwide network, orchestrated
through beunited.org, that is working toward bringing BeOS or the
equivilant back into the market place. There is however little hope
for success of any alternative operating systems making headway on
x86 (Intel) architecture if the following issues are not addressed:
Open Office Suite file formats
Win32 APIs
Boot sector control through restrictive licensing
Dual boot availability with predominant platforms
It is commonly accepted among Operating System enthusiasts that
BeOS was one of the most advanced, most promising, and at the same
time most doomed operating system because of the inability to work
with vendors to get the product to market. This was truely the
demise of BeOS. Any settlement that allows any company to restrict
what OS'es may or may not be installed by 3rd party hardware vendors
and computer manufacturers would be simply forcing the fate of Be
Inc and BeOS onto the next company that attempts to innovate in the
OS marketplace. Further more, I think appropriate punishment of
Microsoft should not come in the form of donations of hardware and
software to schools, but rather it should include funding of
Operating System research and development in the educational sector
and no profit organizations. By taking advantage of and empowering
the bright young minds our in country's high education instutions
you would be fostering the same scenarios that led to the creation
of Mosaic and the Netscape Browser and we all recognize how that
changed the world.
Thank you,
Jason Stiles
Associate Consultant
CRM Alliance Services
[email protected]
cell phone # 270-303-8322
home phone # 270-563-2403 v-
mail # 804-327-4854
MTC-00009265
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Further litigation should be denied for the following: --The
Dept.of Justice reached a verdict and compensation agreed to by the
party majorities. --To allow further litigation one has to only
question the motives and rationale of the remaning few.--To pursue
further litigation casts serious doubts on the credibility of the
Dept.of Justice process and abilities of its hard working personel.
MTC-00009266
From: Muller, Thomas
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 4:34pm
Subject: Penalties
I can't believe that you caved to the Microsoft monopoly and are
allowing them to continue to rip the people off. They are
overcharging the consumer for their operating system. They are
subjecting us to operating systems that are full of defects,
security flaws, and they are not being ``innovative'' as they claim
to be. I hope the states that defected from your settlement are
successful in braking the company up into at least two separate
companies.
Thomas P. Muller--Project Engineer
[email protected]
636.940.5281
MTC-00009267
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:25pm
Subject: (no subject)
Gentlemen,
As a business leader I personally feel we have taken up enough
of the public time and capital in pursuing MS to the ends of the
earth. The remaining state attorneys general must feel a need for
job preservation (i.e. re-election) by endeavoring to keep this case
in the public domain unendingly. Please in the interest of all
concerned, particularily the consumer, put this to rest asap.
Sincerely,
Bill Weinzierl
MTC-00009268
From: Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:31pm
Subject: change is needed
I think it is time to end Bill Clinton era anti-trust law abuse.
Let's get on so the free enterprise system can produce jobs and
financial assistance to the American people.
MTC-00009269
From: Kevin Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
BlankThe purpose of this email is to communicate my complete
dissatisfaction with the ongoing anti-trust case against Microsoft.
While I have my complaints against Microsoft and its products, it
seems inconceivable to me that the company would be litigated
against for being a monopoly. This is simply ludicrous, in my
opinion. In
[[Page 25135]]
fact, I believe this case has done tremendous harm to those in our
community who take the risks and innovate. The outcome of this case
applies to everyone, not just Microsoft.
I don't know whether Bill Gates contributed to Bill Clinton's
campaign or not, but it seems clear to me that this misuse of
governmental power is abusive and harmful to the public and it is my
strongest position that the case should be ended now with an apology
issued to Microsoft for all the harm it has caused and another
apology to the public for the waste of taxpayer dollars used to
litigate this case. This applies to the states that continue to
litigate as well.
Kevin Brown
MTC-00009270
From: Fran (038) Gene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:36pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAWSUIT ?
I think you should let them off at this point--just look at all
the good they have done --- I couldn't have a computer if it wasn't
for Microsoft ??
Virginia
Ralph Anderson
[email protected]
MTC-00009271
From: Scott McLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
You have failed to prove your case. Drop it and stop wasting our
money.
Success is not a crime.
Scott McLaughlin
President
MultiMedia Dental Systems, Inc.
www.multimediadental.org
877-770-8514
MTC-00009272
From: Guthrie Chamberlain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case
I am writing today to voice my opinion on the Microsoft
Antitrust case. As an owner of a business that is part of the IT
industry I feel this case has been dragging on for too long and it
has hurt not only Microsoft, but also the entire IT industry. The
government has no rights meddling in the affairs of independent
business unless it is truly hurting consumers through unfair
practices. This is certainly not the case with Microsoft who has
facilitated computing technology to benefit the majority of the
world's population. Productivity and creativity has been stifled and
it is now showing in the marketplace. Our economy has grown so much
in the past two decades, due mainly to Microsoft and other key
companies providing innovative products to the general consumer.
I have firsthand experience dealing with Microsoft, as I work as
a Systems Integrator, creating and installing networks. Their
products have made our business run, as well as the majority of our
clients. As Microsoft experienced problems due to these lawsuits, so
have we and it has affected the entire economy. I feel part of the
recession that we are now experiencing is due to these lawsuits. I
ask that you please take the public's concern into consideration and
help put an end to the lawsuits. Additionally, I hope that remaining
nine states can come to quick settlements, without further scrutiny
from the government.
Sincerely,
H. Guthrie Chamberlain, III
501 Chamberlain Drive
Marietta, OH 45750
Guthrie Chamberlain
President
Eagle Technologies Group, Inc.
[email protected]
www.eagletgi.com
740.373.9729 x101
MTC-00009273
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
The settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for
them, the industry and the American economy.
Please don't let special interests groups defeat the public
interest.
Best regards,
Don Hepperle
Phone: 541-548-3354
Mailto: [email protected]
MTC-00009274
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:59pm
Subject: public comments on MS case
Dear Justice Department,
I have been following the government's misguided lawsuit against
Microsoft. I have been a Microsoft user ever since I started using
computers and I don't like the way the government has been attacking
them.
In the first place, I like the way Microsoft bundles software. I
think it's a big headache to purchase everything separately and then
try to figure out what will work with what. Microsoft already does
that for me; they perform all of the compatibility computations and
work out most of the bugs before the product ever gets to me. I call
that ``good service.'' That's why I purchase Microsoft products.
In the second place, I have rarely (if ever) had a problem
adding programs to my Microsoft operating system. I realize that
there is a learning curve with new software and it may take me a
while to figure it out; but that is not Microsoft's problem, nor is
it the government's problem. Using Microsoft's operating system has
NOT prevented me from using competitor's products. As I observe this
case, I feel that any remedy that the Federal government proposes
will probably cause me a big headache. It is not the government's
job to work against the best interests of its citizens ... including
me. This case should have been dropped a long time ago. In reality,
it was nothing more that a witch-hunt proposed by President Clinton
when he discovered that he couldn't shake-down Bill Gates for
campaign contributions. In conclusion, I strongly urge you to drop
this case totally.
God Bless America.
Respectfully submitted,
Max Effort
21609 Cedar, St. Clair Shores, MI 48081
Phone: 586-779-2028
email: [email protected]
MTC-00009275
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:00pm
Subject: Lawsuit
Gentlemen:
I want to take this opportunity to say that I support Microsoft
in this lawsuit brought by the federal government. This is in direct
conflict to everything Americans hold dear. Our freedoms have been
encroached upon too long and it is time for this nonsense to end.
Thank you very much.
Hilma Storz
739 Edgebrook
Houston, TX 77034
[email protected]
MTC-00009276
From: Eleanor McCabe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:04pm
Subject: Stop the antitrust suit
It is time to stop the waste in continuing the antitrust suit
against Microsoft. It is not needed with all the more important
cases for the Justice Department to bring to trial.
MTC-00009277
From: Glenn and Wanda Trapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft
I want to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust.
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Sincerely,
Wanda Trapp
Rt. 4, Box 327
McAlester, Ok 74501
[email protected]
MTC-00009278
From: Michael P Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:05pm
Subject: Federal Gov't Settlement..
The settlement is a fair one and all States should accept it as
being a reasonable solution to a very complex problem... We
[[Page 25136]]
ought to squash further litigation and get on with the job of
growing American Technology...Let Microsoft get back to
work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michael P Parker
Retired IBM Exec
Avid user of PC software
MTC-00009279
From: bobhague
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft fiasco
Sirs/Ms:
It's time to end this travesty of justice. Bill Gates has done
more for this country and the economy than William Jefferson did to
it, yet Honest Bill got off scot free while you waste time and money
persecuting a true American. It's time to go after the real
criminals, Clinton-Clinton, Gore and Reno.
Get on with it!
Sincerely,
Robert E. Hague
261 Lafayette Drive
Roseville, Ca.
MTC-00009280
From: Larry Reich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge that this be done and over with, I support the Microsoft
Settlement , Lawrence A. Reich 2445 Airport Rd. Eastman Ga. 31023
MTC-00009281
From: annie m. lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:07pm
Subject: microsoft
i don't like bill gates, he is a dem. but i don't know what he
did to them but LEAVE THEM ALONE. this has all been politacol. so
drop it, annie lane, carthage, ms. 39051
MTC-00009282
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:08pm
Subject: RE; MICROSOFT
I AM WRITING TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE END THE CLINTON-era ANTI-TRUST
LAW ABUSE AGAINST MICROSOFT. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ABUSE OF THIS FINE
COMPANY THAT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD THIS ACTION BROUGHT IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
SINCERELY,
HARRY HOLDING
MTC-00009283
From: gmewborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:10pm
the govt and states and crying competitors need to get off this
kick that microsoft is killing them. if they want to develop their
own software operating system then go to it . everyone is jealous.
microsoft should not stop others from doing there thing. I think a
company can do whatever it wants to develop new products. you can
buy or not buy. g.m.
MTC-00009284
From: Conley, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft case...
Gentlemen....
I think settling with Microsoft is a big mistake! They are, in
fact, a monopoly...and should be divided into a systems company, an
applications company...and an Internet company.
When I can't buy a new computer without having Microsoft's
operating systems installed on it... thats NO choice!
Say NO to settlement!
David F. Conley
Citizens Communications
5600 Headquarters Dr., #A2O14
Plano, Tx 75024
469-365-3467
MTC-00009285
From: Bud (038) Lyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Hesse:
After perusing information provided the public regarding the
Microsoft Settlement, and not being a ``Wall Street Attorney'', I
wish to encourage the Court to be equitable and fair in its ultimate
decision regarding the Microsoft case.
The Pacific Northwest, after September 11, has been feeling a
domino effect from the tragedy that occurred in New York City. Our
local NYSE and NSDQ stocks have suffered great losses, from which
many will never recover. Granted, we are all in the same situation,
but the State of Washington, on a daily basis, is losing high tech
companies--just folding up, or consolidating out of state. Our
unemployment rates are climbing rapidly with the loss of Boeing
jobs, and frankly, the future for the State of Washington looks
bleak.
A blow to Microsoft would simply add to the recession our state
and country is finding itself in. As a citizen of the United States,
I do not wish to see more businesses punished to the point of
extinction. Mr. Gates has done, and will do wonderful things for
education, world peace, and the welfare of children, worldwide, if
given the opportunity under our free enterprise system. He has
stepped down from a very lofty and important position in his company
to cooperate in this matter. My greatest fear is that he will lose
interest in the company he started, and not have an interest in
promoting new and innovative ideas that will benefit everyone,
worldwide. The states involved in this lawsuit are stamping their
feet like children, refusing to be reasonable for the sake of
everyone, to prove that they are mightier than Microsoft, its
management, and Mr. Gates. These states and the rest of our United
States will end up the losers. We all need to cooperate to reinstate
a healthy economy, where business can thrive, thus allowing us to
deal with important issues facing us in the future.
That future is now in jeopardy, and I wish to urge those who are
charged with the decision in the Microsoft case, to take more than
just the law into account. Real human beings, with families,
mortgages to pay, children to educate, retirement to plan for, and a
job to take pride in, is at stake.
This is not a chess game, but real life, and I pray that you
will do what is right for all, not just a few
Thank you for listening to a citizen's opinion.
Best Regards,
Lyn Wessman
[email protected]
MTC-00009286
From: John McClaughry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case is a long running embarrassment for Justice
and damaging to the economy. The pending settlement is a reasonable
conclusion. Please accept it, and tell the nine grandstanding AGs
complaining about it to go chase some real criminals.
John McClaughry, Ethan Allen Institute, Concord VT
(I have no connection to Microsoft.).
MTC-00009287
From: Maher Saba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Congratulations on signing the settlement with Microsoft. I hope
all the states will follow suite. I am writting to offer my support
and hope that the judge approves the settlement as soon as possible.
Thanks, Maher
MTC-00009288
From: Jean Galburt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse of Microsoft.
Where would be all be technically if it were not for Bill Gates, his
collogues and his company. His programs & operating system's are
wonderful.
Paula Jean Galburt
MTC-00009289
From: Frank Bankenbush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:54pm
Subject: Micro-Soft settlement
Please end this foolishness.
Let the marketplace adjust itself.
Franklyn J. Bankenbush
11409 Washington Ave. #10,
Sturtevant, WI 53177
262-886-9249
MTC-00009290
From: Steve Wersan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft Settlement, whichever way it turns out,
will be a legal and business history landmark that will be pointed
to by legal historians and business, academic, and government
leaders for years to come.
Antitrust laws were drafted precisely for the purpose of curbing
and punishing the not-alleged-but-proven sorts of misbehavior
committed by Microsoft. If the proposed, slap-on-the-wrist
settlement is adopted, the conventional wisdom of the future will
say
[[Page 25137]]
that this decision amounted to a judicial repeal of the antitrust
laws, and initiated an era in which antitrust enforcement became a
lapdog for egregiously monopolistic and avaricious businesses.
Conversely, if the court rejects this pussycat settlement and
moves toward the only logical and just consequence of these
misbehaviors by ordering the breakup of Microsoft, it will be saying
that this is still a country whose laws are fairly enforced and
enforced all the time. It will also be said that this decision
initiated an era in which the full power of the computer and the
internet were liberated from the self-seeking domination of one
company's restricted vision. ``Once to every man and nation comes
the moment to decide ...''
Dr. Stephen J. Wersan
Ridgecrest, CA
MTC-00009291
From: pmckelvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:36pm
Subject: String'em Up
Yesterday, I read in USA TODAY, that a VP at Microsoft had said
that LUNIX was the next target. Microsoft keeps their code secret, I
guess security by obscurity. LUNIX is out there for anyone to work
on and improve. Even the National Security Agency has published code
examples as ways to make a ``LUNIX'' system more secure. I expect
Bill Gates to include the ``Universal Plug and Play'' in LUNIX, thus
opening it up to the hackers. But the code will be proprietary so no
one will know.
Of great concern to me is the requirement that to do any kind of
business with Microsoft, you have to have a Microsoft ``passport''.
As I have read in the papers, Microsoft had to shut the passport
system down for 24 hours because it had been hacked into.
With the ``I Love you'' virus following the rising sun around
the earth and catching people before they were expecting anything is
not surprising. If there is one direct progenitor of something that
is everywhere, such a spread can and will occur. We need different
operating systems. How bad can it get.
The Irish potato famine was caused by a bight. All the potatoes
in Ireland were descended from one potato plant of very good
qualities. But when the bight hit, there were no natural barriers to
stop the blight. According to the accounts of the times, people were
actually dying in the streets as the blight did it's work on what
was genetically one plant. Potato Soup?
Patrick C. McKelvey PE
[email protected]
3315 Ashwood Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45213-2437
(o) 513-631-3486
(h) 513-631-1221
RA 11651752
P.S. Probably 20 years ago, AT&T's Bell Labs had a auto license
plate created. White background with green lettering reading
``UNIX--Live Free or Die''.
MTC-00009292
From: Robert (q)Bob(q) Rood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice.
I have followed the litigation and settlement issues with
Microsoft over the last few years. To begin with, I have been quite
upset over the handling of the case by the previous justice, and was
extremely pleased that he was basically replaced. I am equally
pleased that you apparently have arrived at a settlement with
Microsoft. I believe this settlement to be in the best interest of
the consumer. I still believe that as a consumer I was never hurt to
begin with. I also believe that it is too bad that our justice
system allows self serving companies and States to drag this matter
on. Many of the concerns are from a few with products that were
inferior to begin with. To allow this to drag on will hurt the
consumer and product innovation.
Please enter my request to end this case with the settlement
between the DOJ and Microsoft.
Thank you.
Robert J. Rood, 907 346 1563
MTC-00009293
From: Mark Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:39pm
Subject: Anti-trust Case
To whom it may concern,
I realize that many of you in the Bush administration are
holdovers from the most corrupt administration to hold the office of
President. I also realize that their probably remains a number of
corrupt individuals who believe that all businesses should be
sending large donations to the Democratic Party. (In addition to the
foreign entities that bought legislation from Clinton) But, I
request that you return the country to normalcy (ie Government not
suing legal businesses because you want more cash to redistribute to
the non-producers) That request includes any lawsuits against
Microsoft, Gun Manufacturers, Tobacco Companies, Automobile
Manufacturers.... All of this should cease immediately.
Mark Palmer&
Mark D. Palmer
CC Dickson CO
456 Lakeshore Parkway
Rock Hill, SC 29730
(803) 980-8000 Ext. 264
MTC-00009294
From: Bill Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:38pm
Subject: Settlement is Fair
Sirs,
This settlement is fair to both parties. As usual the only
people who made out were the attorneys. Thanks for your
consideration,
Bill Sherman
Spill 911, Inc
800-474-5911
www.spill911.com
[email protected]
MTC-00009295
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft and our free enterprise system alone!
Let the consumers decide in the marketplace which companies are
the winners and which ones are the losers. I resent your
interference in thinking you know better than us who have been in
the information technology business for years.
We are talking about a $99 operating system that nobody is
forced to buy if they don't want it (the IRS takes much more than
that away from me by the use of force and coercion and I don't get
anything back in return). Consumers can always use the free
operating system called Linux along with its free web browser. Any
new features Microsoft puts into their operating system is purely
for their own survival. Live and let live!
I thank Microsoft for driving down prices so that the common
person can understand and afford technology. If you punish them,
then you are no better than a communist dictatorship which desires
to own and control all business! The shame of it all is that
Microsoft's competitors refused to offer better products at lower
prices and instead resorted to government coercion and force. What a
sad day for American liberty!
If you are truly looking out for the consumers as you say you
are then leave Microsoft alone! Answer this question--how many
complaints have you heard from the consumers themselves (the very
persons you claim to be protecting)?
MTC-00009296
From: Ben Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am a computer user of both a Microsoft Operating System and a
non-microsoft operating system that is trying to market itself as an
alternative to the Windows line. So far, the operating system I
favor (the BeOS) and others like it have had major roadblocks thrown
in our facees due to Microsoft practices. The OS's I speak of run
well with their own software, or with each other's software, , but
have had a very difficult, if not impossible task of working with
the Microsoft systems, which the majority of computer users use.
If these other businesses are to be given the equal right to
develop a product, Microsoft must be properly dealt with in this
case. Microsoft's Office file formats cannot be used by non-
microsoft software and the Windows installer will not let me boot
into my non-Windows OS, so I cannot try to develop software for the
Operating System of my own choice. Many other hinderances placed by
Microsoft prevent legitimate software developers from writing!
software that people can use. Thank you for your efforts to rectify
the issues at hand. I am not alone, users world-wide share my
appreciation for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Ben Allen
[email protected]
MTC-00009298
From: Syd (038) Ron Corbett
[[Page 25138]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
I think we should be more concerned with stimulating the economy
and encouraging innovation in business than with shackling
creativity and entrepreneurism. Penalizing achievement will simply
drive our businesses and economy down. Leave Microsoft alone--that
way it can add to the economy with jobs.
Sydney B. Corbett
231 SE 45th Terrace
Ocala, FL 34471
MTC-00009299
From: John T. Weisel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let's put this one to rest, you've beat up on MS enough now, and
we all got the message. Let's lay off now.
John T. Weisel
Sunriver, OR 97707
Voice: 541-593-8201
Fax: 541-593-7318
([email protected])
Mail: 20 High Oak Drive, Medford OR 97504
MTC-00009300
From: Brad Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
To whom it may concern at the Justice Department,
I support the Microsoft settlement as been proposed.
This case needs to be put to rest and get on with more important
issues.
Sincerely,
Brad Smith
[email protected]
423.743.5765
MTC-00009301
From: Marc H. Berblinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft
Stop wasting your time & our tax money on the Microsoft case.
Marc Berblinger
Registered voter
San Diego, CA.
MTC-00009302
From: Del / Sue Chase
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust.
Get it over with!! It's questionable it should have been an
issue anyway.
MTC-00009303
From: Dick H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:01pm
Subject: End the Clinton-Era Anti-Trust law abuse.
Enough is enough! We need to protect our brilliant
entrepreneurs, not penalize them. Without these persons our
employment opportunities go by the wayside.
It is time to end the Clinton-era abuses!
RJH
MTC-00009304
From: Gary Roush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:03pm
Subject: anti-trust law abuse opinion
I want to state that I do NOT approve of what is going on with
the States accusing Microsoft. Microsoft is merely trying to survive
among the many rivalries and have already given a lot to the
demands, more so than should be required. The rivalries and
competitors as you can see are playing around with no ropes tied to
them taking advantage of the opportunities to win unrighteously and
unfairly, while Microsoft, of all the good they have done, have way
too many ropes tied and this is unjust. Why penalize a company for
being too good or for being too helpful? I want the Clinton-era
Anti-trust law abuse to end and it should end now! Our tax money is
being wasted by this type of trial.
Gary Roush
12712 7th Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98177
MTC-00009305
From: volner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:05pm
Subject: Anti-Trust
I think it time to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
against Microsoft. As a user of Windows I applaud Microsoft. There
product are top of the line and I use them daily.
Billy Volner
3615 Pennsylvania Ave
Mims, Fl 32754
MTC-00009306
From: Ethel Feyertag
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please stop this Microsoft case...how ridiculous. With all the
real crime which took place in and around the White House, 1992-00
[never prosecuted], and that among some senators/congressmen, how
can they keep this up. I do not want our tax money spent going after
Microsoft, and further, I think they deserve an apology.
E. Feyertag
MTC-00009307
From: Joseph Shields
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A few ywars ago now, i remember getting a CD free with an issue
of PC Plus with a bootable demo of BeOS 4.5 on it. I instantly fell
in love with the system, getting used to all the advantages it held
over Windows, bemoaning only the lack of support for my
(considerable) collection of Windows-only software and hardware.
I proceeded to buy BeOS 5 Professional about a year later, to
help do my bit to support a fantastic piece of software.
However, I was most distressed to read online that the BeOS was
officially dead. This is an extremely unfortunate state of affairs,
and is solely down to strong-arm tactics carried out by the
Microsoft Operating System monopoly.
There is a large community at work, all of whom would like to
see a viable update or evolution of the BeOS back in the
marketplace. However, there are a number of factors which place
Microsoft in a position which simply cannot be challenged now that
their monopoly is in place.
The Windows system itself is a closely guarded secret, and as it
is unfair to expect software manufacturers to re-write a version of
their software for every Operating System under the sun, the only
alternative is for an Operating System to have built-in support for
another. In this case, BeOS (or any one of a hundred other systems)
could sensibly compete with the Windows monopoly if the core
components of the source of Windows, the API-related functions
(especiallythe DirectX API, the workhorse of Windows as a platform
for playing videogames), were made availible. Lack of competition is
bad for the consumer and bad for the economy. And leads to expensive
anti-trust cases against monopoly-holders. Nobody wins.
There is a small list of other potential issues:
The leading office suite software, Microsoft Office, is, without
a doubt, currently the best on the market. This cannot be disputed.
However, there is no sensible way for companies to try to make a
shot at trying to better Office, as the specifications for the
Office files (.doc, .xls, .ppt etcetera) are ANOTHER guarded secret,
and a business cannot afford to use software which cannot read or
write files compatible with what the company down the road uses. I
have personally experienced issues caused already by Microsoft's
unneccessary changing of the specifications so that anybody who uses
a recent version of the Office software must go to great lengths
(losing much formatting information in the process) to be able to
send documents to people with older versions. If you have Office 97
and really want to exchange with colleagues, then you're looking at
a 250 upgrade for the privilege. Take this scenario, and it gets a
thousand times worse when files created in Word XP with any advanced
formatting cannot be opened in a suite for a non-Microsoft-endorsed
system such as Gobe Productive under BeOS. The file specifications
for most formats (HTML for web pages, JPEG and GIF for images, ZIP
for compressed files) have been open to everybody for years, and the
buisinesses behind them have NOT suffered as a result. Making the
Office formats mandatory is more than a good idea, it's a required
action.
The final suggested action is not rooted in Microsoft's
monopoly, it's rooted in them being bastads and wanting to take
advantage of their monopoly: When a new PC is shipped, Microsoft
lisencing states that the reseller's lisence is void if the system
isn't a ``clean'' Windows system. i.e. if the Reseller installed on
it, say Windows 2000 Professional AND Mandrake Linux 8.1, the
company loses its right to sell Microsoft-equipped machines and
Microsoft will never speak to them again. Much as I've ranted,
Windows is currently a requirement of a system you intend to use
around the home.
[[Page 25139]]
Windows has been designed, hopwever, to stamp out any other
operating systems it finds on your computer, If you have a working
BeOS computer and install Windows XP, then it will remove your
ability to run BeOS. The same applies for Linux, and any REALLY
alternative system you could name-- Windows changes the Master Boot
Record to disallow the running of other Operating Systems. Every
other non-Microsoft operating system in creation provides a ``boot
loader'', which provides a list of the Operating Systems availible
on a computer when you switch it on, and all the systems in the list
will co-exist happily. If you install a non-Microsoft system AFTER
Windows, then it will put Windows in its list and the system will
still work just as well. However, Microsoft simply do not ALLOW
systems to include a dual-boot facility, which could threaten
Windows as the user's operating sstem of choice. I'm pretty sure
this lisence still covers the installation of any Internet Browser
software other than Microsoft Internet Explorer (such as Netscape),
as again that could pose a risk to Microsoft.
Dual-booting is NOT hard to program. Only obstinance prevents it
from existing (and being permitted) in Windows as default. This is a
crucial issue which on its own could make Linux much more marketable
(if not help BeOS if implemented in isolation).
Thank you for (hopefully) reading through my $0.02, and I hope
the comments are helpful and are taken into account. I am NOT one of
the pure anti-Microsoft fanatics you find. I'm a fan of superior
products. I use my Microsoft mouse and Joypad as they're the best
availible. However, the strong arm tactics used by Microsoft for
their Operating System and Office software is simply unfair.
Yours sincerely.
--Jo ``directhex'' Shields
MTC-00009308
From: Colleen Dunham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement and 15 U.S.C. 16
Dear Madam or Sir:
I have just returned from a long Christmas holiday. While I was
away, family, friends, and other people engaged me in conversation
about the Microsoft case. My conversations were with people from
many walks of life in many parts of the country. I was surprised
that so many people wanted to talk about the case and surprised that
people outside of Microsoft have such strong feelings about the
issues. All expressed some degree of approval of the Microsoft
settlement for themselves, for the hi-tech industry, and for the
American economy. None wanted to see additional litigation or
further delay.
Please consider my observation as the United States determines
whether to settle this antitrust suit.
Yours,
Colleen Dunham
MTC-00009309
From: Tom Arlin Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:13pm
Subject: re: STOP
The Microsoft trial has squandered millions of taxpayers'
dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to
investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial,
and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers
will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally
breathe a sigh of relief.
I believe this single act of heresy perpetrated by Bill Clinton
and his lacky, Janet Reno, may well have been the catalyst for the
recession we have experienced since and are still experiencing now.
Tom Arlin Dean
22204 Pepper Road
Athens, AL 35613
MTC-00009310
From: enbcpa2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft case
Dear Sir or Madam at the Justice Dept.:
Microsoft has been a blessing bestowed to America, because that
company's technology gave this country a great deal of productivity.
The technological advances have been great and have been made
available to everyone at a very low cost.
I think that the American people would be well served by ending
the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuses.
Microsoft is good to our economy. These law suits are only good
to the lawyers.
Edgar N. Baquero, CPA
1428 Heights Blvd.
Houston, TX 77008
Tel. (713) 869-5332
Fax. (713) 869-8385
MTC-00009311
From: Daniel Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS operating system back into the market place, but there is no
hope of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
1) open MS Office file formats
2) open Win32 APIs
3) mandatory dual-boot options (i.e. multiple operating systems
per computer)
In addition, it is clear that Microsoft should be split into two
parts--one for the operating system itself, and one for software
(and any other non-operating system components). This will help
reduce the advantage it's own software has on the MS Windows
platform.
On top of that, a huge fine for it's illegal and unethical
strongarm tactics.
Sincerely,
Daniel Berger
Plymouth, MN
MTC-00009312
From: Rick Dassow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case
Dear Justice Department,
As a consumer of software products, I would like to petition the
Justice Department to break up Microsoft. I believe that Microsoft's
monopolistic practices have severely limited the choices available
to the end users. Additionally, I firmly believe that by tying the
operating system and its software products together, Microsoft has
not only limited consumer choice, but has also perpetuated the use
of inferior software products in the marketplace. Without choices,
the consumer is limited to using inferior software products, and
does not benefit by natural innovation that comes about by companies
competing in the marketplace. I would conservatively estimate that
Microsoft has set the software development industry back 7-10 years.
I hope that when the final decision is made, consideration is
given to not only Microsoft's competitors, but also to how this
large monopoly has effectively stagnated the advancement of the
industry as a whole.
Rick Dassow
Senior Vice President FOUR SEASONS SERVICE GROUP
303-367-1332
MTC-00009313
From: Dana Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:29pm
Subject: User opinion
Gentlemen:
As a user of the only available operating system, I am highly
insulted by Microsoft's attitude. Windows is a monopoly because the
software required for my appraisal business is simply not available
for Apple or Linux. Not because Windows is a better environment, but
because of Microsoft's predatory practices. I was employed by IBM in
1961, thus am familiar with the Consent Decree signed by that
monopoly. While I was loyal to the company, I was also familiar with
the heavy-handed tactics employed which artificially maintained that
monopoly.
I see the same techniques employed by Microsoft. Every time a
sucessful competing product appears,
Microsoft does one of four things:
1. Re-write the OS so that the offending program won't run, or;
2. Buys the offending company, generally killing it, or;
3. ``Sells'' a competing program at little or no cost, or;
4. Pressures it's large customer's (manufacturers) into not
offering the offending program by predatory pricing or threats of
actions which would put the manufacturer out of business.
If Justice had not acted forcefully with IBM, a personal
computer today, including software would probably cost in the
neighborhood of $35,000. Microsoft must be broken up into, at a
minimum, an operating system company and an application software
company. Additionally, the heavy-handed tactics employed by
Microsoft, outlined above, should be vigorously punished.
Sincerely,
Dana L. Norton, IFA
MTC-00009314
From: John Hughes
[[Page 25140]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse against
Microsoft!
John Hughes
20811-D Bear Valley Road
Apple Valley, CA 92308
MTC-00009315
From: Kathy K.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:25pm
Subject: We Support Microsoft!
MTC-00009316
From: Robert Moran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial
I support ending the Microsoft Trial. This a waste of tax payers
(my money) money. This is about special interest groups and nothing
more. The consumer is going to be the victim in anything but an
ending of the Trial.
Robert Moran
9624 Kini Place
Diamondhead, Ms 39525
MTC-00009317
From: Jim Lasch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The government has no business trying to break up Microsoft.
It's time that we got over the idea that if a company is big and
successful it must be bad. Those Democratic Party ideas are no
longer in power. Just get out of that business and let Microsoft
alone. They got where they are through hard work and a lot of
effort. The government should not penalize that.
James H. Lasch
MTC-00009318
From: SANFORD SHIFRIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:30pm
Subject: United States vs Microsoft
We have spent more time pursuing Microsoft than pursuing Osama
Bin Laden. It is time to stop pursecuting Microsoft and drop this
case against a truly great American Company. They have done more to
advance our economy than any other american company.
Sanford Shifrin
P.O. Box 5013,
Scottsdale, Az. 85261-5013
480-948-4676
MTC-00009319
From: Edward Middleton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:33pm
Subject: Anti-trust law abuse
MTC-00009320
From: Sean Klope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You?ve wasted enough of my taxes on this outrageous trial.
Please approve this settlement and save us further loss of precious
dollars. You wouldn?t even be receiving this email if it hadn?t been
for Bill Gates. He has saved so many people, companies and
government agencies so much money by increasing their productivity
with Personal Computer's and you have the audacity to cite him for
poor business practice. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Sincerely,
Sean L. Klope
Director of CIS Operations
Manufacturing Company in El Cajon, CA
MTC-00009321
From: rossenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft
Let us put this to bed, enough money has been wasted, all for
nothing. I am almost 78 years old, computers are a great thing in my
life, without Microsoft, I would have never learned how to use them.
Bill Gates has done more for the nations around the world than any
company I can think of plus all of the people that have jobs. Let
this all go away and they will have more resources to develope new
products for the USA and the world. Clinton is gone, so should the
phony charges against Microsoft.
L H Ross
Tucson Az
MTC-00009322
From: CZackim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:44pm
Subject: Let's make an end to the Anti-Trust Case
To whom it may concern:
Few company's have created the type of wealth that Microsoft has
helped their employees accomplish. In addition they have provided
ways for all types of people to earn income more easily then ever in
the past. Let's make an end to all this nonsense and allow Microsoft
to work without interference.
Sincerely,
Carole Zackim
River Vale, NJ
MTC-00009323
From: GARY STOLP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:47pm
Please end this persecution of a successful industry that has
done more to inform the world and this country than all the
television and newspapers combined.
Sincerely,
Gary C Stolp
1218 Boston Street
Muskogee OK 74401
MTC-00009324
From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/7/02 6:50pm
Subject: ``Red Letter Day'' Review
During the slo-motion chess moves of the Microsoft Anti-Trust
Trial it is interesting to note a few of the ``extraordinary
events'' in Orange County since the New Year, in order to gain an
overall perspective of the ``big board''.
An LA Times chess column after New Years hinted at the
``greatest, largest real estate chess game'', beginning right now.
Certainly COX Communications, Orange and San Diego counties are
involved with major pension funds and investments behind the
chessboard.
On a smaller scale, my sister & her husband, Bonnie & A1 Rex
have placed their home for sale with a realtor and friend. My
feelings are that their home, my brother Barry's home, and perhaps
my cousin Robert Miller's home in suburban Chicago were purchased
with funds illegally appropriated from me, using a variety of
underhanded methods. My parents' visits to the IRS confirming sales
of these homes leads me to believe that a court order has finally
been enforced. My Friday ``Knight'' move, motoring the silver Celica
chariot to Kinko's Irvine center signaled additional documents for
the US v Microsoft litigation for those who followed. The subsequent
road trip to LA's Westwood FBI office and a visit to the Los Angeles
Federal Building were closely monitored by others loyal to Disney,
Oracle, Apple Computer, and multinational affiliates. Castrol GTX
was even kind enough to award me with a print ad in AOL/Time
Warner's Sports Illustrated later on Friday evening, confirming it's
OK to drive your car ``hard'', as long as you use their oil. The
wonders of today's electronic/print advertising at lightspeed! My
Wilshire 5-speed legal Celica sprint from the FBI offices in
Westwood to the Federal Building in downtown LA in under 40 minutes
during Friday's rush hour was definitely noteworthy.
Tony Tavares, President of Disney's Anaheim Sports knew he was
finished at Disney/Anaheim Sports, resigning on Friday, about the
time my documents were printed. Some of my recent writings had
references to the PAC funding from Arrowhead Water Company & Disney,
stalling my employment search & documents regarding antics at the
Crystal Cathedral's concourse elevator, where I provide volunteer
service on Sunday mornings. The Crystal Cathedral's music & creative
teams use Macintosh computers for music scoring & multimedia
creations. This team recently received new IMACs and other Macintosh
computers, perhaps as part of a ``grant''. Some of the
administration uses PCs running versions of Microsoft Windows. Email
can be sent across the platform at the Garden Grove campus.
The volunteer security service I provide on Sunday's has really
evolved into a political position. Most of the choir members meet at
this area when forming for each procession (usually two each
morning), musical and pulpit guests are escorted on the concourse
level via the elevator nearby. As I have mentioned in an earlier
memo, I have purchased a small 13'' Sony TV in order to view the
telecasts downstairs, and coordinate the security efforts with
others. Each week at this service brings new challenges, mostly
social skills answering guests questions, and providing friendly
service to the staff. That's no problem. Other times, a few of the
Crystal Cathedral's family members scheme a few events targeted to
challenge me. Most events are harmless pranks, I just roll with the
humor.
[[Page 25141]]
Yesterday, however, I believe additional pollen was placed in
suspension on a table, perhaps through oil in a perfume, or sprayed
on the Sony TV, exasperating my bronchitis/upper respiratory
infection, challenging and overwhelming double 24 Hour Sudafed
medication ingested before I arrived. My sinus and face could hardly
stop from running, after the previous bronchitis had mostly cleared
up. I know from educated biofeedback when an accelerant or another
``piggyback'' attack would occur from experience. Fortunately, my
experience as a professional and athlete (just as the Crystal
Cathedral members are) allows me to perform even with a fever &
cold, as I never missed a live Blackhawks Hockey game during the
three seasons I performed at the Chicago Stadium.
The Orange County Register had their Show section cover page
with the title ``Blackhawk Down'', a double meaning for the editors.
Fortunately, my conditioning allowed me to run 12 miles at Newport
Beach the day before the Crystal Cathedral security gig. President
George Bush and his family were vacationers in California and Oregon
this weekend. ``W'' visited a predominantly Hispanic group of
supporters in Ontario on Saturday morning. We had heard rumors that
the Presidential family may visit the Crystal Cathedral, however
their afternoon trip to Portland, Oregon on Saturday signaled a
different agenda, perhaps to visit with some of the of the Nike, HP
& Intel Beaverton Bunch, and to show support for this heavily
Republican area.
Sony Pictures' ``Blackhawk Down'', like several of Hollywood's
recent titles, ``The Rat Race'', ``Ocean's Eleven, 12/07/01 `Are You
In?''' and others have had a subliminal theme regarding foreplanned
activities for me. While I was training for the LA Marathon with the
Roadrunners in Venice Beach last August & September, ``The Rat
Race'' began to appear on billboards throughout Hollywood, beginning
in late September/October. One of the best ``Amway'' motivational
tapes I heard was, ``When You Know Why, You Can Endure How!'' This
philosophy is truly inspirational, with a success story from one of
the hard working members of the INA group. A lot of people criticize
the methods that ``Amway'' people use, in the media especially,
however their perseverance is incredible, using group training as
one key for success!
The Hollywood movie ``moguls'' continue to spend millions of
dollars on schemes in order to stall my financial settlement. Most
of these companies had been fuelling the subversion against me for
years, for unknown reasons other that the Wirtz/Blackhawk connection
I had many years ago. I have detailed some of the ``forced labor''
in the multi-decade plot to ``clone'' the replacement hockey
musician, and the multinational million dollar plot to cover it up
afterward. In 1977, the first edition of an advertising book for
cable and broadcast television authored by San Diego State
University Telecommunications Professor, Elizabeth Heighton, was
released. The second edition, dedicated to ``Bob & Dorothy, again!''
was re-released in 1985-86, the years I attended SDSU's
Telecommunications program. In other words, an eight year
``overtime'' forced labor period occurred because I first refused
the Stadium opportunity in 1977. I received my BA from Northeastern
Illinois University in 1979, and continued to perform live music and
represent information technology products in the Chicago area until
1985.
Closing, with a few words about last week's ``Red Letter Day''
courtesy of local Aliso viejo USPS workers and several large
companies. Geico insurance, Speigel Catalog, and I'm certain, the
investment side of Wells Fargo in Orange County, CA conspired to
send their ``red letters'' at one time, distributed by the Aliso
Viejo USPS for delivery last week. That takes quite a bit of
coordination folks, almost as much as a ``grassy knoll/textbook
depository'' conspiracy.
I have appreciated the USDOJ confirmation that some Crest
toothpaste has been spiked with a sedative in my parents home,
stored in their bathroom. I used one of the new tubes a few months
after my mother had purchased these ``especially for me'' for one
application, wondering why the tubes had never been used. I could
feel the sedative reaction to my day's performance. The Crest tubes
have a ``gold leaf'' shape on the box, and a similar printing on the
tube. I have never used the toothpaste after the first trial,
knowing the ``Muenchausen's Proxy Syndrome'' and previous food
packaging/intentional poisoning experience my family has. This
Blackhawk was never downed by the anthrax attack. I only had a few
easy days after the new year running at Newport Beach, Niketown &
shopping visits in LA shopping & USDOJ document processing in
between! My father had called one of his Chicago area sisters on
Saturday. I overheard a part of the conversation that stated, ``It's
like the flu, when you're down for a few days!'' My father hasn't
been sick for over a month, and this conversation was most probably
a confirmation of the anthrax or bio attack on me.
Thank you for listening,
Robert Remington
MTC-00009325
From: Dave Bowling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I think that it is time to end the action against Microsoft. The
settlement that is currently on the table is more than fair. I feel
this entire process was a poor use of taxpayers dollars not unlike
the waste involved with the impeachment of President Clinton. It is
time to end an era of Anti-trust abuse. Please remove the deterrent
to investors in the high-tech arena so that we can get the economy
moving again.
Thank you,
David Bowling
212 Orlando Avenue
Normal, ILLinois 61761
[email protected]
MTC-00009326
From: Pat (038) Jim Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:53pm
Subject: End the persecution
Please do what you can to end this fiasco. It has cost everyone
enough and it is time to aid our economic recovery.
Thank You.
Jim A. Dougherty
MTC-00009327
From: Don Blume
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please drop the case. This was a vicious Clinton/Reno attack
because Gates is successful. Don't frighten would-be entrepreneurs
out of their dreams, and further damage our great Country.
Thanks,
Don Blume
MTC-00009328
From: Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:54pm
Subject: anti-trust case
Leave Microsoft alone! Without them, people like me would not be
able to do so much with our computers. Clinton created the decline
in tech stocks with his assault on Microsoft. Only his buddy at
Oracle did ok. I hope you listen to the many voices like mine and
settle once and for all!
Rose Hutchinson
MTC-00009329
From: Frederick D Eggert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish it known that we support the subject settlement!
MTC-00009330
From: Pat (038) Jim Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:56pm
Subject: End the persecution
Please end the persecution of this company and lets get to work
ending our recession.
Thank you.
Jim A. Dougherty
MTC-00009331
From: Bob Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I am writing in support of the settlement reached between the
Federal Government and nine states in the Microsoft case. I believe
the settlement is in the public interest, and I am distressed that
Microsoft's competitors and other special interest groups are
continuing their efforts to prolong this litigation. I am a consumer
and I use Microsoft products extensively. They are the main reason
that I can use a computer in my personal life and business. Their
products are reasonably priced and are superior to most of the
others I have tried. During the comment period, I urge you to look
at the benefits that Microsoft has brought to the industry and to
our nation. Let the special interest groups turn to their own
devices and spend their time and efforts on improving their
products, the way that Microsoft has improved theirs
[[Page 25142]]
over the years through innovation and dedication to their ideals in
a highly competitive industry.
MTC-00009332
From: Keith Godfrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:01pm
Subject: acknowledgement
Greetings,
I submitted a public comment last week and did not receive any
confirmation. Should I expect something of the sort? Also, what is
the deadline for filing comments relating to the case?
Thank you,
Keith Godfrey
Senior Software Engineer
Wolfetech Corporation
MTC-00009333
From: Mr. Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:10pm
Why are Microsoft's competitors allowed to influence the outcome
of a court case? No matter what the outcome, they would say it's not
enough (of course they would!). $1 Billion in computers to low
income schools is bad? Apple isn't happy because that's their
market--OK, then have Apple supply those schools with computers and
software.
Has anyone looked at AOL/Time Warner lately--how about instant
messaging, isn't this an FCC issue, yet I hear nothing about it. All
I ever hear from AOL, Sun, Oracle, etc. is bad mouthing of
Microsoft. If their product(s) were better we would be using them--
period. And please don't tell me they can't compete, these guys
OWNED the server market, but Microsoft built software to COMPETE
with them. They didn't cry, they created & innovated. Don't tell me
$100 Billion dollar Corporations can't compete.
Linux, Palm, and a myriad of other OS's exist, but I'm not going
to use them if they don't do what I need and I need business ready
applications. Windows is extremely rich in what it provides, and
Office does everything anyone could possibly need. Word Perfect and
Lotus didn't evolve fast enough, so how is that Microsoft's fault?
I would have had a problem if Microsoft stood still and didn't
improve their products, but every one of their releases takes huge
leaps forward. They hire some of the brightest minds in our country,
and their ``ex'' employees have gone on to create untold numbers of
jobs by starting other technology companies.
Microsoft continues to provide leadership and direction to an
entire industry, and believe me not everyone hates this company, in
fact many of us are big fans.
MTC-00009334
From: Patricia Birren-Wilsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:13pm
Subject: Shameful Abuse of Microsoft
As a discriminating consumer, I would like to see an end to the
Anti-Trust abuse in which Microsoft has so long been ensnared. We
should applaud, rather than condemn, Microsoft, who has so
steadfastly provided handsome compensation to so many, as a result
of superb design, marketing and distribution. I say, leave Microsoft
alone, so it more continue, without distraction of chastisement and
penalty, to represent itself as a glowing illustration of American
Capitalism!
Patricia Birren-Wilsey
Winnetka, California 91306
818-718-6390
CC:Jerome Birren,Kerry Penn,Daniel Licon
MTC-00009335
From: Emmet Rixford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT JUSTICE DEPT.
Please stop wasting my tax dollars on the Microsoft Case and
interfering with Business & Investment.
Accept the settlement!
Emmet Rixford
MTC-00009336
From: Brenda Pope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:34pm
Subject: No more Microsoft abuse!!!!!!!
Hello,
Please leave Microsoft alone. Don't continue the Clinton-era
meddling where you don't belong. This is a country where you are
supposed to have the freedom to succeed without government
intervention!!!!
Thanks,
B. Pope
MTC-00009337
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:17pm
Subject: Law Abuse
We urge you to end the Clinton-era Anti-Trust law abuse.
Richard and Phyllis T Harold
205 E Florence Ave
Glenwood, IA 51534-1107
MTC-00009338
From: Allen Bossa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft
It's time for the government to quit harassing Microsoft. That
company has done more to make computer use easy for everyone to
master than anyone else. Stop wasting our tax money.
Allen Bossa
Brigham City, UT
MTC-00009339
From: Bill Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello, I wish you and yours could settle the microsoft
settlement as soon as able. Much good and saving of money will come
of it!
Thank you,
William R. Mann Jr.
942 Viscaya Blvd
St. Augustine Fl. 32086
MTC-00009340
From: Dr. Chuka Okafor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:21pm
Subject: Confidential Business Proposal
From the desk of:
DR. Lawrence Ubah,
Tel No: Your Intl. Access Code + 873-762-692484
Fax No: Your Intl. Access Code + 873-762-692485
Email: [email protected]
Lagos, Nigeria.
ATTN: MANAGING DIRECTOR/CEO.
REQUEST FOR AN URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
After due deliberation with my colleagues, We have decided to
forward to you this business proposal. We want a reliable person who
could assist us in the transfer the sum of Twenty Million, Five
Hundred Thousand United States Dollars ($20,500,000) to your
account. This fund resulted from an over-invoiced bill from
contracts awarded by us under the budget allocation to our Ministry.
This bill has been approved for payment by the other concerned
Ministries. The contract has since been executed, commissioned and
the contractor was paid the actual cost of the contract. We are left
with the balance US$20.5M as part of the over-invoiced amount which
we have deliberated over estimated for our own use. But under our
protocol division, we as civil servants are forbidden to operate or
own foreign accounts. This is why we are soliciting your assistance
in this manner and regard. As you may want to know, I am the Chief
Accountant/Internal Auditor of the Contract Award Committee (CAC) of
the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). This transaction
is very much free from all sorts of RISKS and TROUBLE from my
Government. We the N.N.P.C. Officials involved in this deal have put
in many years in service to this Ministry. We have been exercising
patience for this opportunity for so long and to most of us this is
a life time opportunity we cannot afford to miss. You need not to
worry about the responsibilities of transferring this fund into your
account, because all the administrative step needed for the transfer
of this fund into your designated bank account will be done by us.
We have agreed to COMPENSATE you duly if agreement is reached by
both of us and I and one of my colleagues involved in this deal will
come to your country to arrange for our share, upon the confirmation
from you that the money has been credited into your nominated bank
account. Consequent upon your acceptance of this proposal, kindly
confirm your interest by Telephone to me, through my Direct Tel No:
234-1-775-5558 and Fax No: 234-1-759-7416. Your indication by revert
Telephone to me of your sincere and serious interest will enable me
send you or brief you of the PROCEDURES FOR THIS TRANSACTION. If my
line is busy, please be persistent enough and you will surely get
through.
NOTE: In the event of your inability to handle this transaction
please inform us so that we can look for another reliable person who
can assist in this respect. It might surprise you why we choose you
and trusted you for this transaction. Yes, we believe that good
friends can be discovered and business like this can not be realized
without mutual trust. This is why we have decided to trust
[[Page 25143]]
you for this transaction. Be further informed that everyone's
interest and security had been considered before you were contacted,
so be rest assured and feel free to go into this transaction with
us. But let Honesty, Trust and Confidentiality be our watchword
throughout this transaction and your prompt reply will be highly
appreciated. Thank you, and God bless.
Best Regards,
Dr. Chuka Okafor.
MTC-00009341
From: Mary Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:22pm
Subject: Justice Dept. Suit
MTC-00009342
From: Peter Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:24pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is fundamentally flawed.
I think that the settlement as now written will further entrench
Microsoft's monopoly position and will not be in the public
interest. I believe that Microsoft's exercise of its monopoly power
has harmed me both personally and professionally. I believe that I
am still being harmed.
1. I believe that Microsoft has used its monopoly power to
charge me predatory prices. In particular, I believe Microsoft has
used its monopoly power to implement business practices designed to
drive competing products (such as DRDOS, among others) from the
market so that it can set prices unilaterally.
2. I believe that Microsoft has supplemented these monopoly
business practices with technical measures designed to reduce or
eliminate my ability to use alternative products. In particular, I
believe that Microsoft has used its monopoly in operating systems to
prevent competition in its Office applications.
3. I believe that Microsoft has designed its products to make it
difficult or impossible to recover my own data for my own use in any
form other than that designed for use by its own products. In
particular, Microsoft has refused to release the file formats in
which my data is stored by its applications, thus preventing me from
using other programs, even ones I design and build myself, to
further process the data.
I do not believe that this settlement does anything to remedy
the injuries Microsoft has done to me personally. I do not believe
that the proposed settlement addresses my injuries in any way. I
believe that any solution involving the provision of software or
hardware to the public schools should:
1. allow local school authorities to purchase software and
hardware from any source whatsoever, and
2. as a condition for the use of any Microsoft software, require
Microsoft to publish without restriction the full technical
specifications of any software it provides, including, but not
limited to, all application programming interfaces and file formats.
I believe that this latter point is particularly important for
any plan aimed at improving the public education. True education
requires understanding. The goal of education is to prepare students
to understand and cope with new circumstances. To do this, students
must come to know the fundamental principles underlying software
design and implementation, not just how to manipulate screen images.
This type of knowledge is best imparted by providing students with
actual examples of working programs and then allowing them to extend
or expand them.
If Microsoft truly wishes to improve education, then Microsoft
will provide the information about its application programming
interfaces and file formats to make that improvement possible. If
Microsoft does not do so, then I believe that it should exercise no
control over how the money is to be spent. In particular, schools
should be free to spend all of it on hardware and then choose free
software, such as RedHat Linux, if they wish. I believe that this
will be a much better solution.
Peter Olsen
MTC-00009344
From: George Skezas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:27pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sir:
I strongly support the Microsoft settlement. I believe in strong
competition and the waste of taxpayers money on this case is
unacceptable. Please continue to pressue the states who have
continued this battle against one our greatest companies.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
George Skezas
MTC-00009345
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
It's time that our government stop playing the Clinton Era
Corporation Bashing and shakedowns. It's also time for our Justice
Department to stop wasting taxpayers money on pursuing Microsoft on
behalf of their competitors.
Drop the Microsoft case.
Sincerely,
Two overtaxed taxpayers,
Mary and Jim Gede.
MTC-00009346
From: Geoff Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:33pm
Subject: Stop
Enough is enough. Its time to end the Bill Clinton shakedown of
Microsoft.
Geoff Miller
MTC-00009347
From: Andrejus Stavickis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Sir/Madam,
This message in response of the message from Microsoft, dated
Wed 1/2/2002 12:20 PM, Subject: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS
settlement.
I'd like to make a few short statements. From one point of view,
it's looks like the MS must be punished for their monopoly, but from
the other point of view, there are NO any harm to end-users. Looks
like this is a battle just between gigants. And nothing more, except
lobystic movements, are found in that case.
The monopoly can be reached in a few ways, one is when the
government gives the monopoly rights to a company, another one when
users just use only that service--this can be done in a 2 ways--
there are just no competitors, the monopolist's product is so cheap,
that there are no other competitors.
As far, as I know there are always a choice for users to install
or not an operating system when they receive a new/OEM computer. And
when I bought a computer they always asking me do I want Windows or
Linux, or you can deal with the manufacturer what to install--even,
if they have an agreement with MS, that--may--prevent them to
install Linux on their system.
Last, but not least: The harm to American economy (and the
Global economy itself) whould be much more higher, than meaning
results archieved with the more strict settlement. Just imagine--
Microsoft will bancrupt within 6 months after settlement--how we
will work on our pc's? Even Your pc will be left without any
support. The whole state will loose a job, American Government will
loose hundreds of billions in taxes. Or just imagine--The Microsoft
will transfer it's main office to another country--it's excellent
solution for destination, but for United States it's whould be a
long and really deep recession. Microsoft even whould be able to
just ``buy'' a small country.
Conclusion: I think, that there should be some limitations for
Microsoft, but just keep in mind, that the ``stick always has a two
ends'', if you will ``bend the stick too much'' the stick will
broke--then there will be no way back. I believe, that you will come
to right and fair settlement.
God, bless America.
MTC-00009348
From: Randall Jarrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00009349
From: The Dixon's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:40pm
Subject: Antitrust Case
I switched to Windows ME this year from MAC OS. The ME OS
product is riddled with problems. I had hoped that the Win ME
platform was as stable as Win 98 rel 2. It is not. Windows XP does
not hold much promise either. PC World Magazine has had several
articles concerning the bugs in XP. If any other manufacturer sold a
product with as many defects as Microsoft, the would be sued out of
existence or run out of the market place by poor sales. Internet
Explorer 6.0 is full of security bugs.
There is little choice in certain business applications when it
comes to an OS. The strong tie between Microsoft OS and networking
and applications lends itself to
[[Page 25144]]
monopolistic practices. For example--Where can I get MS Office XP
for a Linux platform? Where can I get a MAC version of AutoCAD?
There is not a strong effort for compatibility across OS platforms.
Ask Jobs what it took to get a current MS Office Suite for MAC OSX.
Microsoft has a major PR problem. If my ME system worked well I
would not be as upset. Microsoft dictates upgrades through
compatibility and support issues. At work, we have 2 years on the
Win 2000 OS before support ends and we are forced to upgrade. My 5
year old MAC did not give me as much trouble in five years as this
system (ME) did in the first 5 minutes. If MS products worked I
would have less complaints. The image of Microsoft is upgrade and it
will resolve itself. I have a new computer with a half baked
operating system. To fix it is time consuming as well as full of
conflicting options on how to resolve it. I started with a DOS 2.1
PC. I am not a first timer. I went MAC to find a stable platform.
When the system works it can be good.
Follow the release bugs on the systems and applications. Not
impressive. Also not competitive.
Chuck Dixon
Parkville, MO 64152
email:[email protected]
MTC-00009350
From: Patrick R. Lizot
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/7/02 7:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Please settle the Microsoft's case! We have to admit that they
are the Best of the Best all around the world!
USA should be proud to have such a ``computer-firm''! a hand-
user.
Patrick R. Lizot
Senior Procurement Specialist
Central Operations Services
Ext 5746
MTC-00009351
From: Angelo Campanella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Posture in the software reatik market.
I use software as a means to an end; engineering consulting. I
used DOS (pre Windows) most successfully from 1985 to 1995, because
it offered the widest choice of software to do a wide variety of
important engineering support services.
These days, the widest variety of useful software (for
engineering) is written for Windows. I don't mind this directly, but
indirectly it is a HUGE nuisance because, unlike DOS, Windows is
huge, taking up astronomical amounts of memory, and often very much
slower for relatively the same tasks. The slowness truly comes from
huge embellishments that few of us ever asked for such as multi-
color, imagery (pictures and artwork not related to my work
product), security, conversion of other software, etc.
The Internet has made this scene even more complicated.
Microsoft, instead of continuing the philosophy of DOS (of being
compatible and simple to use, has made extremely complex
enhancements), and at the same time made it difficult to use other
software items.
Microsoft, instead of making compatibility its theme, has
instead promulgated exclusivity. To me this act is tantamount to
causing a monopoly. If there were wide choices in the marketplace,
Microsoft's attempts at such exclusivity (like pushing their
``Explorer'' in our face at every turn) would be avoided by we
users, by simply not using Microsoft products.
But we cannot do that because of the breadth of the use of
Windows systems. It borders on being a public utility. I can
communicate with colleagues around he world, and exchange Windows
documents easily. I know that that last statement flies in the face
of my Microsoft Truculence theme, but in reality, both are true, and
I should want also both of them to be right; not one right
(worldwide commonality) and one wrong (domestic exclusivity and
failure to enhance ease-of-use).
One thing that Microsoft MUST be FORCED to do is to offer on-
the-telephone assistance to any and all of we software users 24
hours a day and seven days a week including holidays for a period of
not less than FIVE years. Never mind trying to squeeze money out of
Microsoft. Just get them to operate a large multiplicity of 800-
lines ``free'' (in lieu of your settlement dollars) so that they
really help us as a public service while they also ``feel our pain''
in using their software. This will be turn out to be a win-win
situation, in my opinion.
This service is easy for your agents to police since any one of
them and of their family members can call anytime during the year
period to poll the ongoing utility proffered.
Angelo Campanella
``I have simply studied carefully whatever I've undertaken, and
tried to hold a reserve that would carry me through.''--Charles A.
Lindbergh.
MTC-00009352
From: Michael J. Masquith
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/7/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am part of a global network that is focused on getting the
BeOS (or an equivalent, possibly open-source) back into the market
place, but there is little hope of success if the following issues
regarding Microsoft aren't addressed:
Open Office file formats. MS Office file formats are
unfortunately simultaneously ubiquitous and proprietary. Because
there is realistically no chance of them being superceded by any
open standard, they need to made non-proprietary, (probably by court
order).
Win32 APIs must be documented and made available.
Dual-boot options should become mandatory. The single most
damaging thing that MS has done was largely ignored (except by those
whose businesses were destroyed). Their ability to force the major
OEMs to only install Windows precluded any competition whatsoever in
the Operating Systems market, precisely where BeOS attempted to
compete. Not even the most microscopic vestige of these onerous
strong-arm `agreements' with the OEMs should be allowed to remain.
Enormous, crippling penalties should be swiftly and irrevocably
levied if it recurs.
Anti-trust measures must break down and stomp completely flat
all barriers the monopolist erected against competition. BeOS, even
in it's current weak condition could at least attempt to compete if
the playing field were set level again.
Thank you.
Michael J. Masquith
Barkin' Beaver Studio,
Herndon, VA
MTC-00009353
From: Ken Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:48pm
Subject: Justice
Dear Sirs;
It is my belief that we have had enough of Clintons slime and it
is now time to get on with it.
As part of getting on with it, it seems to me that we should
discontinue the perssecution of a successful effort named microsoft
and start fignting our way back to what America was founded on,
Freedom to do, Freedom to be and Freedom to have.
Please stop using tax dollars pursuing someone who is good at
what they do.
Sincerely
Ken Howe
MTC-00009354
From: Philip Casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:49pm
Subject: Antitrust Case
Please end this case against Microsoft. This has been a waste of
tax dollars and has kept more important matters from being heard in
court. This country is based on capitalism and until this case, it
has not been against the law to produce a product and sell it.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Philip L. Casey
MTC-00009356
From: Gilles Desaulniers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Having been around since the beginning of the ``micro computer
industry'' since I bought my first radio shack computer in 1977, I
can comment that Micrososft controls everything and we now have no
more choices.
The industry is dominated by them. the enthusiasm that created
this industry is now gone and hopelessly forever linked to Microsoft
tentacles that we can't shed no matter what we do. Their software
needs upgrading every couple of years that demands more money from
the consumer. They integrate every new innovation into their
operating system and destroy the incentive to create new stuff.
Their bullying of the JAVA language the Sun Computers invented
is a perfect example of hijacking innovation.
The zest and fervor surrounding the industy is slowly dying. I
used to look forward to programming and trying new things and being
part of an ever expanding
[[Page 25145]]
industry. Now we sit on the sidelines and watch ``Microsoft do their
thing''. Punishment should be very severe. A compnay like Microsoft
that has endless resources also has numbers of tricks up it's
sleeves. The idea that they will just sit and behave is ludicrous.
The wealth accumulated by this company is drectly related to
it's forceful actions. Some of it needs to be taken away.
I slimmed down version of windows would be very usefull and any
patenets they hold with the operating system should be invalidated
becuase of their actions.
I suspect that they will only continue to corner the industry
and hold many companies hostage to their petty demands because they
can. If only in suttle tones it is enough to make and small
innovator capitulate to a giant like Microsoft that has unlimited
legal help and dollars. No company would every think of taking them
on Excpet manybe IBM and SUN. Everyone else is lost.
As I write this text on my WINDOWS computer and you receive it
on your windows computer. . . . think about the choices we really
have. NONE NONE. . . .
HELP us the reinvigorate this industry again and allow the
genius that every single one of us can perhaps bring to this
industry and let them benefit from the ideas and share in the
wealth.
Thanks
Gilles Desaulniers
San Francisco
415-637-6415
MTC-00009357
From: MRW
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:53pm
Subject: settlement
Let Microsoft alone and let them continue to provide jobs for a
lot of people.
Merle Weinman
MTC-00009358
From: Bill s.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sir,
It is about time that you allow Bill Gates to do what he does
best and that is to use the American System of Free Enterprise.
Bill Gates did not do anything wrong. 1) He came up with a
product that is superior to anything else on the market; 2) Most of
the intelligent manufacturers decided to use his products; and 3)
people became adept at using his products and, regardless of what
they say, are desirous of maintaining compatibility in their systems
and continue to purchase Microsoft software.
Bill gates did it the correct way. It is about time that the
U.S. Government gets off of his back and allows him to continue to
provide the American public with the products (software) that the
want.
How about the Justice Department really going after the ``BAD
GUYS'' in our society and letting Bill Gates and Microsoft alone.
Thank you very much,
William J. Staskel
Janet Staskel
14 First Avenue
Central Islip, NY 11722-3010
(631) 234-6628
MTC-00009359
From: george mezori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:58pm
Subject: more
Dear sir; Please stop this mud slinging on Microsoft. We are
having enough problems with the stock market currently.
Stop the trials.
G. Mezori
MTC-00009360
From: Bob Patterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 7:54pm
Subject: End
Please end the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse. I support the
Microsoft settlement.
Bob & Judy Patterson
MTC-00009361
From: Giles Constant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:02pm
Subject: A small comment about Microsoft
Dear sir/madam,
It is impossible to buy a laptop computer in the UK without
giving money to Microsoft. Really--I've tried. Even if I intend to
use Linux on the machine, due to the OEM licensing restrictions
(which the DOJ settlement has failed to effectively address),
licensees are not allowed to provide me with the hardware without
Windows. The EULA has a clause which says if you do not use the
software, you can take it back to the vendor for a refund, but
unfortunately, this is only applicable for the price of the entire
laptop. This is (in my opinion) the most definitive example of the
term ``monopoly'' I can possibly imagine. Although I speak from the
UK, where the problem is likely to be addressed by the EU, I would
hope that after the considerable expense involved in finding
Microsoft guilty in this dispute, the USDOJ is capable of dishing
out a *resolution* to the problem of Microsofts continuous attempts
to gain control of every single aspect of computing from hardware to
software to networking, at the expense of the people who actually
work to make computers better for everyone.
If Microsoft's software were superior to (say) BeOS, which
failed to survive as a consumer operating system due to the very
licensing restrictions I object to, then I would be happy to use
their software, but unfortunately, I only ever find myself FORCED to
use it against my will, due to the viral nature of the company and
its software.
Very disappointed.
Giles Constant
MTC-00009362
From: george mezori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:02pm
Subject: support
We support the current Microsoft settlement. Please,please
discontinue the court proceedings.
G. Mezori
MTC-00009363
From: Frank Meyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sirs/Madams
I support the Microsoft settlement. Please add my comment to the
public record.
Thank you
Frank Meyers Jr.
MTC-00009364
From: Dale Malott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft--Clinton Anti-Trust Law Abuse
Gentlemen: It is time to end yet another attempt by left wing
liberals to fleece an American Company as Clinton's pay back to the
lawyers for their contribution to his two disastrous
administrations. Microsoft was built by imitative and hard work. If
the companies that run to the Justice Department to complain about
Microsoft had exhibited the talent and hard work, they would be in a
position to compete.
Please end this Anti-trust Law Abuse now.
Thank you,
Dale Malott
MTC-00009365
From: Annette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:10pm
Leave Microsoft alone PLEASE! Don't wreck it like AT&T was
wrecked! Look at our phone system now!!!!!
Annette Crane
Keystone Heights, Fla.
MTC-00009366
From: JAMES B. LINTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sirs:
I think it is about time that we get on with business and leave
microsoft alone. Bill Clinton is out of the White House now so we
don't need any of his anti trust laws.
Thanks,
James B. Linton
204 S. Wise St.
Samson, Al 36477-1510
MTC-00009367
From: barbara ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:11pm
Subject: Anti-trust abuse
Will you please stop all this nonsense about Microsoft. The only
people who have been hurt are those who put their money in for
retirement and education for their children etc.
Please stop hurting myself and others who trust you to have
common sense.
Do you not realize that the economic problems all started when
Clinton decided again to hurt the people he was to protect? All our
economic problems right now can be traced right back to that law
suite.
Barbara Ball
La Crosse, WI 54603
[[Page 25146]]
MTC-00009368
From: The Galli's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:13pm
Subject: The ``Case''
The nine States and the Dist. of Colombia would be much better
off starting to tend to their own increasing economic woes and stop
Beating the ``Help the Consumer Drum'' for a cause whish was dubious
from the onset.
Don't we have enough Economic Behemoths'' gasping for air
without putting another to the test? If I was Bill Gates I would
move my Corporate Headquarters off shore in a show of Disgust''
A concerned citizen-consumer
MTC-00009369
From: barbara ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This is supposed to be a free country, free enterprise, etc.
This is an outrage companies should be allowed to do what they want
and the people will decide whether or not they wish to support said
company. The government has to get over the idea that we are
children and need them to tell us how to spend our money and that we
can and do make decisions all the time.
Barbara Ball
La Crosse, WI 54603
MTC-00009370
From: David Hebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:19pm
Subject: Please end the abuse!
To Whom it may concern,
It's time to move on and end the ridiculous law suit against
Microsoft one and for all. Bill Gates has done great things for the
Personal Computer world and the liberal elite can't stand it. It's
time to quit spend taxpayer dollars in an attempt to ruin a company
that has been key in economic growth in America.
Please stop the litigation's now.
David Hebert
Psalm 119:9-11
MTC-00009371
From: Frank Jett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over.
I Support the Microsoft settlement.
Sincerely
Frank Q. Jett
MTC-00009372
From: Gorman Blanton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:17pm
Subject: Re: Antitrust Microsoft
Dear Sirs:
We have had enough of the Clinton era Anti trust aginst
Microsoft. Please end this fiasco aginst the only American Company
left in the United Sates. Stop all The Chinese Products that are
flooding USA. there is the reason our economy has bottemed out and
the reason is Bill Clinton SOLD OUT THE USA TO THE CHINESE!!!!!!
Gorman T Blanton
MTC-00009373
From: Seth Held
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
If Microsoft has broken the law, fine them and moniter them but
don't make the consumer suffer by doing what you did to AT&T. Please
. . . seth held
MTC-00009374
From: Judith Gersting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my belief that the Microsoft settlement should go forward
so that this company can get back to its main business of developing
software and that its competitors can also move forward and develop
their own products. Too much time and money has been spent on this
process, diverting energies and funds from a more useful purpose.
Dr. Judith Gersting,
Chair Computer Science Department
University of Hawaii at Hilo
200 W. Kawili St.
Hilo, HI 96720
MTC-00009375
From: Maurice Knudsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy.
Please help to end this Clinton-era Anti-trust abuse!
Thanking you sincerely, I am
Maurice J. Knudsen
4428 Main Street
Elk Horn, IA 51531-2000
MTC-00009376
From: Richard Elfers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs:
This message regards the Tunney Act. We urge settlement of the
Microsoft case, with no further litigation.
Sincerely yours,
Richard and Priscilla Elfers
6823 Ripley Lane
Renton, Wa. 98056
MTC-00009377
From: Patricia Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:33pm
Please put an end to the anti-trust litigation against
Microsoft. Why do we punish a company that comes up with working and
workable ideas and puts its competition to shame?
Patricia J. Burke
1427--100th St. S. W., Sp. 156
Everett, WA 98204-1107
(425) 355-5800
MTC-00009378
From: Jane Calvert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Would you please end this ``going after Microsoft'' fiasco. No
one forces anyone to do business with Microsoft or like their
inventions. They obviously have many talented people in their
organization that comes up with technology that people want to spend
their money on and I can not see where they are putting anyone else
out of business by underhanded schemes. Just save the taxpayers a
lot of money and settle this thing once and for all. Let the young
and inventive people of this country know that it is okay to go out
on a limb and invent and invest in their own ideas.
Mr. and Mrs. Earnest L. Calvert
Rt. 1 Box 699
Camdenton, Mo. 65020
[email protected]
MTC-00009379
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Departmet of Justice:
It is time to bring this most unfortunate chapter, the lawsuit
against Microsoft, of our nations history to a close. I
wholeheartedly support the settlement as drafted between the nine
states and the Federal Government; and only wish to include the
suggestion that time is a wasting!
John S. Hoke
1146 Fairways
Lebanon, TN 37087
615-443-3633 (H)
615-405-2954 (Cell)
MTC-00009380
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:35pm
[[Page 25147]]
Subject: End Government attack on Microsoft
To whom it may concern:
The Clinton Administration has past. Hopefully the multiple
abuses of the Justice Department has past with them. Please end this
travesty of justice against Microsoft. Being successful should not
be a crime.
Steve Hunt
6429 Colchester RD
Fairfax Station, VA 22039
MTC-00009381
From: Mike (038) Sandra Bottorff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:43pm
Subject: PLEASE!
PLEASE!
It is time to leave Microsoft and Bill Gates alone!
Stop the Clinton-ista type persecution!
Sandra Bottorff
12750 170th Avenue
LeRoy, Michigan 49655
MTC-00009382
From: Bruce Sparks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft
Drop the stupid persecution of a company that has excelled. It
has become fashionable in America to penalize those that have done
well, and reward those that can't make it on their own. Miocrosoft
has done more that any other company to advance technology in
America. No, I don't have any interest in Microsoft, (wish I had
bought their stock years ago) other than a belief that excellence
should be rewarded, not penalized.
MTC-00009383
From: William R Mattingly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:53pm
Subject: End Anti-Trust Law Abuse
OK! Finally, the Clinton era is over (Thank GOD!) and now it's
past time to end the unlawful disruption of business at Microsoft.
Clinton and his anti business, anti-American antics have cost the
taxpayer millions of dollars. Money which would have been better
spent tracking these cowardly terrorists such as bin laden. Let's
get back to better business please and end the charade.
MTC-00009384
From: Lou Placette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust suit
I am appalled at the flagrant disregard Microsoft has for the
laws of the U.S. The only benevolent monopoly that has been in the
20th century was AT&T which provided very low cost phone service to
the nation. It was broken up and phone service has been less than
adequate since.
Microsoft, on the other hand, forces inferior software on buyers
of computers and willfully suppresses other providers from competing
in a free market society. The cost is maintained at a high level
because no competition is allowed.
The fact that no punishment or dissolution of the company has
occurred so far, feeds the idea that judges can be bought off by
Bill Gates because he has the billions necessary to find anyone's
price.
I urge you to uphold the welfare of the nation and dissolve the
Microsoft monopoly so that other companies can compete in a fair
market allowing consumers to have choices for their spending which
stimulates the economy and provides jobs in technology.
Thank you for hearing my concerns,
Elsie B. Placette
MTC-00009385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settement
I hope the settlement as proposed can be accepted soon. I have
never felt comfortable about this entire mess, but I believe the
settlement is at least fair to most parties involved. I thank
Microsoft every day for my access to the internet through the
Microsoft network that powers WebTV. I want Microsoft to be able to
get back to business doing what they do best, i.e. make competetive
products, and let the free market decide who's product they want. I
thank you for your time.
Sincerely yours,
Rick Valusek
MTC-00009386
From: William Bethel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:52pm
Subject: (no subject)
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
William Bethel
MTC-00009387
From: F M Byford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:50pm
Subject: Support
I support the Microsoft settlement. Let's get it over with.
MTC-00009388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sirs:
The US court has come to an agreement with Microsoft. Please
accept this agreement and let Microsoft get on with its business.
Murray Paterson
[email protected]
MTC-00009389
From: Cathleen Wedlake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:57pm
Subject: RE: Message
Dear Microsoft
I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
Thank You!
Sincerely,
Cathleen Wedlake
MTC-00009391
From: Cheryl Caraglior
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:12pm
Subject: Rediculus lawsuit
It is time to end a rediculus witch hunt of Microsoft which
Clinton began. Too much taxpayer monies have been wasted on this as
is. Let consumers decide what is in their own best interest.
Microsoft may have bundled its browser on Windows systems, but
nothing prevented the public from installing whatever browser they
chose to.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Caraglior
MTC-00009392
From: Kim Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date : Jan 7, 2002 To : Department Of
Justice From : William G Peterson Subject : Microsoft Settlement
I'm very satisfied with the settlement between Microsoft and US
Department Of Justice. The following is the main reason. As a US
citizen is my duty to try my best to provide any information that is
good for our country.
I have read extensively material and document on this case and
settlement including : ``Complaint(5/18/1998)'', ``Stipulation(11/
06/2001)'', and ``Competitive Impact Statement(11/15/2001)''. Its a
good thing you folks and JANET RENO weren't arount at the turn of
the last century. If you were I wouldn't be driving my FORD.
The Departmment Of Justice gave Microsoft very strong order,
stronger than the compitition complaint about. I'm very happy that
Microsoft agreea to this final settlement.
Sincerely
William G Peterson
MTC-00009393
From: Lester Hopper Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
To The Justice Dpartment,
I purchased windows95 with the IE4.0 together several years ago
and did not mind a bit. Should a Jury have any say so about this,
the Law or laws used to incriminate this Nations leading contributor
to our economy would be nullified. I am aware of Mr. Gates and what
he did but many othe free downloads are available and were then. It
is also fact that some of Microsofts competitors held contracts with
the US and installed faulty servers and software. Clinton in my
opinion is who we should be prosecuting for his treasonous acts of
selling some of our most Secret Information to China while
prosecuting Mr. Gates.
These facts could only be denied by LIARS!!!!!!!!
Lester Hopper
6294 Southlake Drive
Hickory NC 28601
MTC-00009394
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25148]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:04pm
Subject: Settlement
This lawsuit has done enought damage to the economy of this
country. More than enough consideration has been given to the
issues. Let's accept the judgement and move on.
Virginia Heilman
MTC-00009397
From: Ross Nooney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT TRIAL
When are we going to give up on prosecuting Microsoft for being
such a good company. I own no stock, but hate to see my tax dollars
being wasted. Oracle, Sun Systems, etc. . . . need to get on with
their business. Prosecute terrorists, organized crime etc. . . .,
but be done with Microsoft already!
MTC-00009398
From: andrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear sirs,
I, Joel Mann, support the Microsoft settlement.
MTC-00009399
From: Rudolph Hensley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (ENOUGH IS ENOUGH)
I support the Justice Department Microsoft settlement, as a
consumer and taxpayer. Stop the financial waste of this legal
maneuvers. Consider the roots of Microsoft, etc., etc., and the
detriment to free enterprise.
Rudolph Hensley
912-876-6398
401 Club Drive
Hinesville, GA 31313
MTC-00009400
From: donna faye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:14pm
Subject: Ending the Clinton-era
Please end the Clinton-era of Anti-trust.
Thanks
MTC-00009401
From: Norm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:16pm
Subject: microsoft
I would like to see the action against Microsoft dropped. No
punishment necessary.
MTC-00009402
From: Carol Wilkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:07pm
Subject: Clinton-era Anti-trust law
The Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse was wrong, and I want to
see it ended.
Sincerely,
Carol Wilkins
MTC-00009403
From: ROBERT MOELLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:21pm
Subject: Justice Department,
Justice Department,
It is my opinion that it is in the best interest of the United
States to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
Microsoft got to where they are by hard work and American free
enterprise. They should not be penalized for being an over achiever.
They have a line of great products that greatly enhances American
business and personal use of computers. For example: if a cow
produces more milk the farmer does not reduce its amount of feed.
No; he gives it more grain thus encourages it to produce more milk!
By penalizing Microsoft you are telling other businesses not to
over produce least they face the same consequences thereby limiting
economic growth.
Robert Moeller
4350 E. River Rd.
Mt. Pleasant, Mi. 48858
[email protected]
MTC-00009404
From: bradley c francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:29pm
Subject: microsoft
Leave Gates and his company alone, he has no more a monopoly
then the power company, postal service, water company , This is free
enterprise, suppy and demand and if he supplies better so be it . .
. just like the power co, the postal service and everyones water
companies so I say leave him and his company alone and focus on real
hurtful things like child abusers and predators.
MTC-00009405
From: Nicole Demas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:32pm
Subject: Enough's enough
Microsoft has spent millions defending itself. When I think of
the software applications that kind of money could have gone toward
I find it insane. Let them do what they do best. The DOJ should
concentrate on terrorists, organised crime families and all the
undesirable elements who belong behind bars for life, not a company
that can make our lives better, richer and more enjoyable.
MTC-00009406
From: Harold Cantley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:36pm
Subject: settlement
I think you should leave Microsoft along, they have provided
great service to the American Public. All the litigation cost lack
business tax is passed on to the consumer, so the longer you keep
them in court the more it coasts we the people so let stop.
Thanks
Harold Cantley
MTC-00009407
From: Service Plus--Jason Kozdra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
I believe, with many others, that Microsoft has made agreements
with hardware vendors, to develop their products so that they will
not operate on ``alternative operating systems'', especially those
that are Open-Source, such as Linux, and some which are not Open
Source, but which are given away at no charge, such as BeOS's
Personal Edition. It is nearly impossible to purchase a PC in the
United States without some version of Microsoft Windows being
included on it (OEM). The cost for this operating system is passed
along to the end user, whether he or she uses Windows or not, even
if that person purchases that PC with the intent to install an
alternative operating system on it.
Many of these users, due to the aforementioned lack of support
for alternative operating systems by hardware vendors, are forced to
switch back to a Windows operating system, just so that their PC
hardware will work.
There are plenty of developers out there who would develop
drivers that would make vendor's hardware work in the alternative
operating systems. It is not a lack of diligence that keeps these
developers from creating drivers for the alternative operating
system if they want to, it is the alleged agreements made between
Microsoft and hardware vendors not to release the necessary
information to these developers. This forces millions of users to
``conform'' to the Microsoft operating systems, strengthening the
Microsoft Monopoly.
I do not believe that settlement discussion should proceed any
further until any alleged agreements between Microsoft and hardware
vendors is investigated.
Thank you,
Jason Daniel Kozdra
5893 Pine Top Road
Blairsville, GA 30512
MTC-00009408
From: Marc Treppler (038) Angela Grupas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I think it is time to leave well enough alone. Microsoft is
doing a great job for everyone concerned.
Without them we will have chaos with no clear standard and no
usable interconnection between systems.
It is wonderful that they have the operating system and the
applications that work together to provide true benefit for the
user. Prior to MS back before DOS, PC's where little more than toys
for nurds.
Everyone had a program that did very little and didn't work with
anything else. Users had to learn every program from scratch. Even
the most basic things like saving a file had to be re-learned
because there was no standardization. LET Microsoft alone and QUITE
SPENDING MY TAX DOLLARS ON A NON-ISSUE. If MS is so bad don't buy
it. There are other choices--you can use Lenex, Apple, Sun, etc.
[[Page 25149]]
Use whatever you like. Buy whatever you like. MS is not
monopolizing the industry they are just doing the best job for the
consumer.
Marc Treppler PE
MTC-00009409
From: Duffy, Bob W Mr USAMISSA
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
CC: Duffy, Bob W Mr USAMISSA
To the DOJ:
1. I have always been opposed to the DOJ anti-trust case against
Microsoft. Reference my pervious comments in my letter to President
Bush (below).
2. I have always been opposed to the actions of the 9 states
that are seeking remedies above those which the majority of the
states and the Federal Government agreed to in the initial
settlement agreement.
3. I am adamantly opposed to any further escalation in the
remedies imposed upon Microsoft via any means.
4. With respect to the 9 states that did not agree to the
initial settlement: they represent a MINORITY faction considering .
. . only 19 of 50 states joined the DOJ suite (Texas dropped out)--
38% of the 50 states sued--62% of the states did NOT sue--only 9
states opposed the settlement . . . 18% of the 50 states--47% of the
19 states that remained a party to the DOJ suite--82% of the states
either did not sue or were in agreement with the settlement.
Conclusion: The DOJ and 82% of the 50 states favored the settlement
. . . 18% of the states did not.
My position on this matter: The court should approve the
settlement that the DOJ and 10 states have agreed to.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Duffy
7811 Pinebrook Dr
San Antonio, TX 78230-4810
My letter to President Bush:
Dear President Bush:
I am becoming increasingly displeased with the prolonged attack
by the state and federal governments on the behalf of Microsoft
competitors via the misguided antitrust suite initiated by the
Clinton Administration. Not satisfied to remain within the scope of
the current bogus allegations, the states are once again attempting
to muddy the waters with complaints and allegations antitrust
violation claims directed against the next generation of innovative
products that are beneficial to the consumer . . . Windows XP and
.net.
The only reason the antitrust case got past the district court
level was because David Boise was able to befuddle a senile,
computer illiterate district court judge who placed more emphasis on
his personal biases than the hard facts relating to a rapidly
changing technological revolution. His biggest complaint against
Microsoft was the belligerent attitudes of the MS executives--they
were justified in being belligerent solely on the basis that their
valuable time was being wasted in court defending themselves against
the Govt bullies and their state cronies and competitors (the same
competitors who had to resort to Govt subsidized competition because
they had already lost the battle in the open market place).
I have personally experienced the technology evolution. By
profession I am classified as a computer specialist. My background
includes programming and systems analysis and development--beginning
in 1971. I have lived the transition from the mainframe to the
desktop PC to the networked PC to the WEB/.com explosion. Anyone
with similar experience can attest to the incompatibility nightmares
of the early transition from centralized processing on the mainframe
to the total chaos of incompatible hardware and software on the
desktop linked by only the ``sneaker net'' of hand carried (or snail
mailed) 360 KB 5\1/4\ in floppy disks. There was no
interoperability, compatibility or common operating standards. There
were no standard networking environments, this is another story but
one that has a good ending at least the Govt didn't try to legislate
the innovation out of it as it is attempting to do to Microsoft.
Microsoft observed this inefficiency in the market place and
listened to the anguish of the early PC users and developed a
strategy that made things easier for the end user, the computer
novice--the average consumer that did not want to have to become a
techno guru to get something done. Microsoft transformed the PC into
a tool that provided value to the consumer by enabling the consumer
to be more productive via a user friendly environment--Hardware,
Operating system and an interoperable suite of productivity oriented
software. This constant focus on integration for the betterment of
the end user experience is why Microsoft has evolved to being the
800 pound gorilla of the desktop, because the consumers did not want
the ``best mousetrap ever built''--they wanted one that was easy to
set and could actually catch mice.
In my own personal evolution I have been exposed to almost all
of Microsoft's competitors' products . . . Word Perfect, Lotus 123,
notes, ccmail . . . Sun Solaris, Unix . . . Novell, Apple, IBM PC
DOS, 0S/2 . . . Harvard Graphics . . . Correll Draw . . . All good
products but one almost had to become a PC techno-nerd-geek to get
something done and God help you if you had to get one product to
read something from a different product that had been sent to you
via an email attachment, provided your email was compatible with the
sender's email. These were the days when you had to have that young
pimple faced smart aleck ``go to guy'' that knew the option, or
setting, or the right format conversion, and what was most
irritating is the fact he got the fix or the Utility program some
somewhere that only the true nerd-geeks-who-didn't-have-life-
outside-of-his (always a ``he''--never a ``she'')-pc knew about. In
short, Microsoft's competitors were 100% focused on the best whiz
banged techno solutions and products in a market that was evolving
into a consumer commodity world--the consumer wanted something that
was easy to use, did something of value, something that could be
done again (repetitive) without taking notes, and something that did
not break (reliable)--Microsoft listen to and satisfied the needs of
the people who were out there, the consumers. Their competitors lost
sight of this and have suffered the fate of many who, in the past,
did not see the handwriting on the wall, how many buggy whip
companies are left??? what about those Beta formatted VCR tapes, how
many 8-Track tapes are there?
When Microsoft got the PC and the Work Stations hitting on all
cylinders with Windows 3.x . . . Windows95 . . . they ported the
same user-friendly operating system with the same GUI and ``point
and click'' behavior to the Server platform . . . What a concept???
take something that everyone is already familiar with on the PC and
stick with it . . . don't reinvent the wheel, don't try to razzle-
dazzle people with new whiz bang OS, directory systems, commands and
super cool behavior . . . stick with the KISS approach . . . Keep It
Simple Stupid! This approach is why Microsoft is the dominant
computer Software, internet and networking solutions provider in the
world--it has nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. As some
who has professionally evolved along with Microsoft I'd like to
share with you some interesting personal observations, early in the
game when Microsoft was coming out with their 1st generation
products intentionally designed to be simple and easy to use--these
same competitors (and a few that aren't around any more) actually
snickered and ridiculed Microsoft's feeble attempts at trying to
compete with their hot shot best of class leading edge (bleeding
edge??) technology . . . I have had sales reps tell me personally
that Microsoft could not compete with their products, where did all
the IBM OS/2 PCs go??? Has UNIX vi replaced MS editors, where did
Netware go??? All of these products failed . . . not because they
were inferior but because they did not focus on the needs of their
markets, the changes in the market place--and most importantly,
because of their hatred for Microsoft they purposely omitted
Microsoft friendly interoperability features, at their peril.
Today we observe the US Justice department still engaged in a
punitive action against a company that has succeeded in a market
place seething with competitors who's primary objective was to crush
Microsoft . . . all one has to find out who they were is read the
list of the companies who testified on behalf of the Justice
department. Most of the states involved are the home states of these
same MS competitors. There is not a single individual, private
company, local, state or Federal Govt agency that does not reap the
benefits of Microsoft's innovative technology on a daily basis.
Now that we are in this WAR on Terrorism, I ask of my elected
officials to observe just how similar the behavior of those against
Microsoft is to that of the terrorists is to the global symbol of
freedom, it seems that any one, any company, any nation that attains
the pinnacle of success and become an icon of something good and
successful becomes a target to those who have failed. I find it very
disturbing that the Bush administration has not put a stop to the
persecution of Microsoft that seemed to be the ``Jihad'' of the
Clinton Justice department.
[[Page 25150]]
Given the situation we are in, the government should be
appreciative of the fact that Microsoft has evolved as the PC and
networking standard--one that the Govt can embrace and turn to for
the propose of securing America's information highway . . .
Microsoft has the technology and because it has become the de fecto
``standard'' security strategies can easily be designed around this
technology, rather than wasting valuable Microsoft resources in a
protracted ill-advised anti-trust battle, the federal and state
leadership should embrace Microsoft as a valued partner in the ``War
on Terrorism''.
Sincerely,
Robert Duffy
7811 Pinebrook Dr
San Antonio, TX 78230-4810
MTC-00009410
From: R. G. Montgomery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:40pm
Subject: Don't penalize sucess.
It is the view of the left, i.e., former President Clinton and
former Atny Gen Reno, that sucess is wrong. Such is the basis of the
case against Microsoft.
Bill Gates, et al, built a ``better mousetrap'' and made money
due to their superior product. This shouldn't be actionable.
Whatever ``monopolizing'' was done, if it were in violation of law,
is a minor matter. Deal with it as a minor matter. Shut out the
individual states who are now trying to turn a profit from
Microsoft's misfortune.
Please un-socialize and de-politicize the Justice Department.
Thank you very much,
R. G. Montgomery
MTC-00009411
From: trina hollander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:42pm
Subject: comment
We support the Microsoft settlement. We want to see an end to
the Clinton era anti-trust law abuse.
Sincerely,
Trina & John Hollander
Calhoun, KY
MTC-00009412
From: Brenda Ann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Anti-trustlaw abuse
To Whom it May Concern,
Please end this Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse with the
Microsoft case! It's such a waste of money, time and talent that
could be spent on something that is truly illegal. In my view, this
is a case of, class envy, and liberals promoting socialism. Very
dangerous business.
Thank you,
Brenda Shumate
Marysville, Ca.
MTC-00009413
From: Patrick Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi just wanted to write a quick email to voice my concern that
something is done about Microsoft and there tactics so that we can
have real choices for our operating system. I would at the very
least like to see duel-boot options mandatory on all new computers
so that other operating systems like Linux and BeOS have a chance in
the future.
Thanks
Patrick Lawrence
MTC-00009414
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen I wish to express my frustration with the
government's continuous pursuit of the Anti-Trust Case against
Microsoft. I believe that the case should be settled and finalized.
Too much money has already been spent trying this case. I would have
rather seen the money spent on education.
It it my belief that Microsoft has enabled the general public to
be able to use Personal Computers and has enhanced the industry with
it's innovation. Stop spending our tax dollars on this case and
spend it instead on bettering our education system.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Mary F. Kush
MTC-00009415
From: Gabriel Georgeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Law suit
Dear justice Department: Microsoft has stole,pirated, and
crumbled companies with their literally stealing the work of many
software developers. It also has a strangle hold on a large part of
the hardware companies that threaten Microsoft. The Microsoft system
is a drag on many users, due to the unreliability of Microsoft
Windows crashing, hard to recover your computer to open, and run
after multiple crashes. Having to call for help, that you are
charged $34.00 per hour for over the phone assistance to get your
lousy Microsoft Windows back up and running from their technicians.
It is a said situation the way Microsoft has a strangle hold on
computer users. Please free computer users to have a open source
operating system (example Lynux), and open Microsoft's hold by
having the coding all of their software. Their software to where you
have no choice but to be in a stangle hold of MICROSOFT. It is a
situation computer users deserve better in these United States of
America.
SET US FREE, Please SET US FREE.
Gabriel T. Georgeff
1217 SW Morningside Drive
Blue Springs, MO 64015-4905
MTC-00009416
From: s(038)s
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:56pm
Subject: leave microsoft alone
MTC-00009417
From: Beri Bek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
I wish the government would just leave Microsoft alone. A
monopoly does not exist. It would really help the economy if this
case was dropped.
Beri B. Bek
Kentwood, MI
49508-6556
MTC-00009418
From: Pamela Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:56pm
Subject: Ending Clinton Anti-trust abuse
To whom it may concern:
You have my full support to do what is just and lawful to
correct any abuses allowed through the Clinton years. I know that
you will know just what to do.
Sincerely yours,
Pamela J. Schmidt
MTC-00009419
From: Vivek Velso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOUDear DoJ Rep; I
have observed the ongoing economic trend for the past years, and, I
would like to offer my suggestions for sustaining growth in the
high-speed digital age.
It gives me immense pleasure to write about Microsoft's approach
in the industry, which is based on central theme of Rapid
Innovation.
The full credit goes to key strategies played by Microsoft and
the Leadership demostrated in bringing the great innovations to
life, encouraging people, engaging customers with their feedback on
products which can change the future in a ``boundaryless'' fashion.
I appreciate Microsoft's customer centric policies, and I am fully
confident that very soon, the new image of Microsoft's Innovation
will take the responsibility for upholding and rolling out a new
Digital Age never experienced before.
Today, the freedom to innovate and to keep America rolling is
only possible after removing the bureaucratic hurdles from the
society, and encourage key players like Microsoft to keep innovating
at speed of thought.
There are many aspects currectly worked upon by Microsoft which
need your utmost support for the freedom to innovate-- Digital
Signatures which can also benefit FAA, Wireless with .NET
Infrastructure for security, Education Telecommunication policies
e.Business Customer Trust and Privacy
We, as the end consumers and residents are trying our level best
to suppport Microsoft with all means like providing inputs for next
generation of Internet Protocol, .NET, beta testing, product
evaluation, to name a few.
I have also urged Microsoft to publish Bumper Stickers, and
dynamic NewsFlashs for encouraging their spirit of innovation.
Microsoft has always respected small emerging companies and
entrepreneurs worldwide, not only in Ohio, who are working hard and
committed to innovation by sharing technology ideas and creating
[[Page 25151]]
value added partnerships for enabling win-win solutions.
Only the hurdles of few arrogant CEO and open minded gurus have
misled the path towards innovation and creating Economic value add.
This will only add towards the worst scenarios of global recession
in a cascading fashion, thereby impacting every vertical industry.
I appreciate your valuable time and hope that my views will go
in a long way to establish a valuable communication link for
sustaining ever expanding growth in the Digital Economy, which is
only possible by the FREEDOM TO INNOVATE...
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vivek Velso
2216 Albemarle Dr Apt#102
Fairfield, OH 45014-4343
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:20 PM
Subject: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS settlement
A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
To cancel your subscription to this newsletter, read the
directions at the bottom of this message.
For nearly four years, your voice has been instrumental in the
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's competitors,
the federal government and nine states finally reached a
comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling.
This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for
them, the industry and the American economy.
However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and your voice is
more important than ever.
The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the ``public
interest.'' Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to
use this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
Between now and January 28th, it is critical that the Department
of Justice hears from you about the Microsoft settlement. The
Department of Justice will then take all public comments and
viewpoints and include them in the public record for the District
Court to consider. Please send your comments directly to the
Department of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28th.
Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the
government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today
to ensure your voice is heard.
Email: [email protected] . In the Subject line of the e-
mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
Thanks for taking the time to make a difference.
To cancel your subscription to this newsletter, please go to the
following website:
http://www.freetoinnovate.com/--utilities/unsubscribe.asp
MTC-00009420
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case should be settled now. There should be no
further litigation.
Audrey K. Leeser
723 Southmeadow Circle
Cincinnati, Ohio 45231
MTC-00009421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:57pm
Subject: (no subject)
regarding your e-mail on microsoft court case i do believe that
consideration should be given to a lower settlement figure and bring
this case to an end.
MTC-00009422
From: Daryl D.Lettie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:02pm
Subject:
DROP IT DROP IT
MTC-00009423
From: Drew D. Read
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:14pm
Subject: Stop Wasting Our Money
Stop spending my tax dollars on battling Microsoft anti trust
lawsuits.
It's a free market economy and if other companies can't compete
against Microsoft, they should go out of business.
If you need to find a good cause to spend our tax dollars
fighting, try reverse discrimination with Affirmative Action. They
mandate lesser qualified ethnic minorities just to meet the lawful
quota. I see this happen first hand in the state university system
in PA. If I were a parent with a college student and I knew they
weren't getting the most qualified professor for the money, I would
be furious. Yet this is exactly what's going on today in our
education system. It's happening in other areas also. People should
be hired on qualifications, not skin color or ethnic backgrounds in
order to meet quotas.
Have a great day.
Drew D. Read
MTC-00009424
From: Frank Allegretta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am interested in taking part of worldwide network that is
working on getting the BeOS or equivalent back into the market
place, but there is no hope of success if the following issues
aren't addressed: examples: open Office file formats, Win32 APIs,
make dual-boot options mandatory, etc...''
Best regards,
Frank Allegretta
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00009425
From: Pat Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear USDOJ,
Please settle the Microsoft case soon and let the country get to
work using this standard.
The private sector can not afford to create custom programs like
the federal government.
The MS windows, explorer and family of products work with great
success and dependability.
Patrick and Alexis Riley
262-15-6722, 527-11-3644
El Cajon, CA 92021
MTC-00009426
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department Of Justice,
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
1. MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either
in form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with
Windows users.
2. The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
3. The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
4. The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
The above facts and opinions have been drawn up by a non-profit
group who's goal is to shed some light on things that have become
apparent in the consumer market concerning the way Microsoft has
acted with its monopoly power. The consumer and its freedom of
choice has been heavily damaged by such misconduct from Microsoft.
As you and I know, the consumer reality has been tarnished into
thinking that Microsoft and its products are the only choice or
alternative to solutions that not too many years ago had
[[Page 25152]]
flourished with products and solutions from a wide range and it is
understandable that some products and/or solutions would and will
disappear.
You and I usually assume (by natural occurrence) now that there
are no alternatives for products and/or solutions in the computing
world when it comes to the PC market other than Microsoft and
Windows... yeah sure there are alternatives, but most of the
consumer market is blind to these alternatives due to Microsoft's
strangle hold on the OEMs with its strict licensing issues. Is
Microsoft totally at fault over this?... NO! I think that the OEMs
should be also held accountable for irresponsibility to the consumer
market by forcing a product and/or solution in giving the consumers
no freedom of choice and blinding them from the alternatives and
staging such a market as if Microsoft and Windows is the only choice
by default.
I do not wish for Microsoft to be split as a company, in my
opinion that would only hurt the consumer market even more and hide
the fact that Microsoft is still Microsoft. I also believe the
latest settlement offer is only going to make Micrsoft's monopoly
more powerful with forcing Microsoft to donate Billions of dollars
worth of products and/or solutions (which would cost only pennies
for Microsoft) to the educational sector in need of such is only
going to worsen the blow to the rest of the competitors affected by
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices already. I am in no way
undermining your decision or proposal of settlement, but I think
that Microsoft would have another advantage over the rest of the
industry in the education market by planting Microsoft's reach in
the way of the back door so to speak. The schools in need should be
given donations of a cash amount and let the schools decide on what
is needed for their children, not Microsoft!
I as a consumer feel that Microsoft has heavily damaged the
freedom of the consumer in a way that has almost damaged the economy
of the US and the economies around the world. I have much faith in
you, the Department Of Justice and I feel that you will resolve and
bring to justice that is rightly deserved to the consumer world and
hopefully protect us (as you always have) from such dangers to our
way of life and our freedom of choice as our ancestors fought so
hard to establish in America. I believe you will do the right thing.
I thank you very much for your time and patience in reading this
letter and good luck to you.
Best Regards...
Dennis
MTC-00009427
From: Carma Woodward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:25pm
Subject: I want to end the Clinton era.
I want to end the Clinton era.
Carma Woodward
MTC-00009428
From: Hans Schieder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft case
Gentlemen:
Please cease your foolish and wasteful trial against Microsoft.
An American company should not be penalized for having been
successful. Let others who would like to make money in that field
also be as creative as Microsoft was to earn their share of the
market rather than crying to the courts.
Sincerely,
Hans Schieder
MTC-00009429
From: Bruce Faling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I understand that the US Department of Justice is seeking
opinions of concerned citizens over the proposed settlement between
Microsoft Corporation and the US Department of Justice. My opinions
on said settlement appear below: Contrary to popular belief,
Microsoft Corporation wields no power over their customers,
potential customers, computer manufacturers, competitors, or the
population at large.
As a private company, Microsoft relies upon voluntary
transactions with its customers in order to continue to do business.
Customers, potential customers, and computer manufacturers alike are
under no obligation to accept Microsoft Corporation's terms before
buying and using its products. They are free to accept, decline, or
ask to amend the terms, but they cannot be ``made'' to do anything
as such. That Microsoft has sold millions of copies of its broad
offerings is evidence that people have accepted their terms
voluntarily in large numbers, and thus any claims of harm
perpetrated against consumers is baseless.
In short, Microsoft has done no wrong. That being the case, any
proposed ``settlement'' cannot sensibly be construed as ``fair,'' to
either the shareholders of Microsoft or their customers. Being how
this settlement, by its very nature, must force Microsoft to operate
in ways it did not see fit to do voluntarily, I must condemn the
settlement for what it most apparently is: An attempt to limit the
competitiveness of Microsoft for the benefit of its rivals. The
marketplace of software products has clearly --and freely-- chosen
Microsoft.
That last statement is significant. The ignorance of many people
of the difference between high market share and true power astounds.
However, the difference is real. Where Microsoft relies upon
voluntary exchange with its customers for its very existence; true
coercive agencies, such as the US Department of Justice, require no
such consent from *its* ``customers.'' Funded by monies expropriated
from productive persons, their function is to force people, and
associations of people, to comply with written law.
Granted, such force is not always employed, but the threat and
ability to employ it is always present. Consent cannot rightly be
said to be given under such circumstances. This is true power. It is
clearly demonstrable that it is by no means the equivalent to
attaining a high market share. Having said that, I can only
recommend dropping the proposed settlement out of hand as well as
the very suit it was meant to settle in the first place.
Sincerely,
Bruce Faling
MTC-00009430
From: George Polycrates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am a Civil Engineer. I remember how intimidating was at the
beginning to use computers even though I had experience from my
schooling. I still see people that they are afraid to get involved
with the computers. I have bought computer from GATEWAY, DELL,
COMPAQUE, PACKARD, HP AND
MTC-00009431
From: Lou Cori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:36pm
Subject: Get Though
Bill Gates has been crapping on the competition and the buying
public from the word ``GO''. He doesn't leave a choice to anyone. I
resented the way that he screwed Netscape and then tried to force
people to use his Internet program without any choice. This scum
ball has destroyed more companies than you could possibly name. Even
the computer manufacturer's have little choice in how they place
software on their products. He has also forced the software
magazine's to use his product article descriptions to the determent
of any competitor. Don't let up on him.
MTC-00009432
From: Danny Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:38pm
Subject: Hidden Microsoft Training Sham
Please restrict the Microsoft training scam they are
perpetrating on people like myself. Microsoft is conspiring with a
group of approved training centers, book publishers, and testing
centers to fraudulently take our money in a training program scam.
At age 53, I was ``downsized'' by my former employer. To enhance
my ability to find work, I spent $8,000 of my savings and 200-plus
hours of classroom time in a ``Microsoft approved'' training school,
using ``Microsoft approved'' textbooks, taking a series of 6
``Microsoft approved'' exams at a ``Microsoft approved'' test center
(at $100 per pop) to obtain my Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
certification (MCSE)... only to be notified by Microsoft that they
have decided to make all MCSE's retake their exams over mostly the
same material to remain certified. NONE of the students who paid
their thousands of dollars in fees were ever told that the
certifications could be cancelled at the whim of Microsoft in order
to keep their relationships with their training centers, text
publishers, and testing centers secure and very profitable.
These Microsoft approved training centers, text book publishers,
and testing centers MUST have a constant flow of students to keep
profitable and in business. In addition,
[[Page 25153]]
Microsoft gets a cut of the action at each level.
I know improvements are made in the software over time, and have
I have no problem taking one or even two exams over the software
improvements to keep current. However, to make us take all (now
SEVEN) exams over 75% of the same material has only one purpose--to
keep the grist in the Microsoft training mills and keep their
approved training partners, approved text publishers, and approved
test centers busy and profitable.
I pointed out to Microsoft that CPAs, Attornys, and MDs attend
classes and seminars to keep current on changes in their profession,
but they do not have to retake all the exams of the CPA exam, bar
exam, or medical boards every time rules, laws or procedures change.
Microsoft, as a monopoly, has said ``too bad'', you must retake
exams over the same material at our approved test centers, anyway.
Please insist that they can put together tests covering changes to
their software and make us take them, but that they cannot insist
that we be forced to retake exams over already tested material to
remain current.
To do otherwise gives Microsoft permission to use its monopoly
power to force us to spend many thousands of dollars in courses and
testing that no other profession is compelled to do. Microsoft can
do for one reason only--they are a monopoly and if we don't like it,
tough!
Thank you.
Danny Brown
15818 Knoll Lake Drive
Houston, Texas 77095
Tel. 281-859-5174
[email protected]
MTC-00009433
From: Chris Chauvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft--Justice Dept. Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I am just an average citizen, but I would like to express my
opinion on the Microsoft settlement.
It seems to me that all that would be accomplished by not
settling would be to punish Microsoft for becoming a great company
that the U.S. can be proud to call our own. All this so that the
competition who would and does do the same marketing practices when
they are given the chance can be satisfied.
Our country was not founded on condeming free enterprise.
Christine Chauvin
Billings, Montana
MTC-00009434
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
NANCY MOREHEAD
638 Heidi Lane
Mansfield, OH 44904
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to request that there be no more litigation in the
Microsoft Antitrust case, and that the federal investigation be
brought to a close with the agreed settlement that you reached with
Microsoft. A balanced, equitable settlement has been negotiated
between Microsoft and the Justice Department, and this document
should put the matter to rest.
The agreement will require Microsoft to share information, and
to change some of its marketing and licensing practices, provisions
for those who felt they weren't getting a fair shot at the market.
The settlement you developed includes definite, realistic
provisions, which will create more openness throughout the I.T.
industry. This settlement will be beneficial because it will improve
the software field, and--perhaps most importantly end this case once
and for all.
I hope you will be able to work towards bringing this case to
conclusion. Please continue your fantastic work supporting the
settlement from the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Nancy Morehead
MTC-00009435
From: Greg Peck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: I would strongly support the settlement of the
Microsoft case. It is in the best interests of the industry and the
economy in general. There has been enough time and money spent on
this case.
Microsoft has gone out of its way in meeting the conditions of
the settlement. I would like to see Microsoft turn its creative
energies into new technology and struggling with this case.
Greg Peck
MTC-00009436
From: Tim Coy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft did not get there by creating poor software!
The American dream is to be able to become a Microsoft by having
a great product and great timing. Its seems as time passes those
that are the failures now use the court system to attach those who
make it. The fallacy is that Microsoft is where it is because it a
Monopoly, this is a joke. I can remember when Windows was a joke and
Mac OS was the way to go. As Mac laughed at Windows, Microsoft
always went to consumer and asked how can we make or software
better. The result is that Microsoft did build a much better OS than
Mac. This a true example of the ``tortoise and hair''. I wish you
would quit trying to destroy success. Jealousy in the power of the
courts system is scary.
Tim Coy
MTC-00009437
From: Jim Illback
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:03pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Case
I believe that the Microsoft Anti-trust settlement case's
proposed settlement is in the 60-day comment period which started
11/28. Here are my comments.
I am absolutely appalled that the settlement has not rectified
the basic issue which is monopolistic control over PC suppliers.
When I go to the Dell Computer web page, there is ONLY Microsoft
Operating Systems available to my on the portable PC that I desire.
That is the problem. I don't want to be FORCED into choosing a
Microsoft OS, especially not XP. Please get this problem fixed with
your settlement, not just let go. The DOJ has been at this since
before Janet Reno and their ``victories'' have been so benign that
it has only re-empowered Microsoft to higher bullying tactics. FIX
THE PROBLEM-- DIVIDE THE COMPANY ALREADY. Hold them accountable for
their illegal actions, so consumers like me will have a choice of
Operating Systems on Dell (or any other) computer. Do your job
already!
Jim Illback
PO Box 627
Ravensdale, WA 98051
425 965-6871
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009438
From: Larry Burkett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The law requires a public comment period between now and January
28th after which the District Court will determine whether the
Microsoft settlement is in the ``public interest.''
My comment is in support of the Microsoft settlement. In my
opinion, Microsoft, while not perfect, has done more to advance
computer usage by the general public than any other single company.
sincerely,
Lawrence L. Burkett,
30 Ebersohl Cir,
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
([email protected])
MTC-00009440
From: J. Thomas Broyles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:19pm
Subject: Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse
I think the Justice Department needs to move on and away from
the pursuit of Microsoft. I believe Clinton and Reno's pursuit of
this fine company precipitated the decline in the economy triggered
by the major drop in the stock market.
J. Thomas Broyles M.D. and victim of the Clinton follies
MTC-00009441
From: Mary Jo Reddick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
We think it is a tough but fair settlement--for all parties
involved. Stop wasting the tax payers money-- competition is
wonderful for consumers like our family. We are an average working
family who appreciate good quality products at fair prices that
Microsoft has made available to us. We don't appreciate our
[[Page 25154]]
hard earned tax money being wasted on frivolous, vengeful lawsuits.
Enough already.
Donald and Mary Jo Reddick
Lancaster, CA
MTC-00009442
From: Blain Hamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
There seems to be a lack of listed courses of action to take if
and when the defendant fails to meet the criteria of the final
judgement. I do not have any law training, and as such do not know
if such a provision is possible. However, I write this with
Microsoft's previous actions in mind.
* This settlement is because Microsoft broke a previous
antitrust agreement.
* During the 5 years of this battle, MS has continued with its
practices.
* In the court, Microsoft was caught committing perjury a full
three times.
* Microsoft has been lobbying to lower the DOJ's funding in
order to reduce its effectiveness.
* Microsoft delayed, agreeing to a settlement only when a full
ultimatum was issued and failure was outlined.
Microsoft has continued to do acts which can be construed as
attempts to monopolize a high-competition market, such as Windows
XP's built-in advertising of MSN (In order to take over the ISP
market) and Windows Media Player disabling high-quality playback of
MP3s, for no other reason than to push Microsoft's own sound file
standard. And I fear Microsoft will not comply to the agreement
unless a sword of Damocles is fully hanging overhead. They have the
funds and the lawyers to continue to break agreements, delaying in
court the actions to be taken as punishment, and finally sign a new
agreement where the cycle continues.
I feel there needs to be a provision that spells out the
possible punative actions that the TC can and will do if Microsoft
refuses to comply, including drastic measures such as the proposed
alternatives, even such things as restricting Microsoft's assets, or
confiscating payments to Microsoft, in the same way the IRS is
entitled to garnish wages of those who fail to pay taxes.
It appears that also missing in this agreement is any form of
public interaction over the long term. I do not see any course a
citizen of the United States, can 1) alert the TC of practices that
I feel should be looked at as possible violations, and 2) obtain
reports, records, or any other documents the TC creates in order to
aid making an informed opinion and alerting others to possible
concerns.
This information is of public interest, and it is mentioned,
``Plaintiffs may use information obtained from the TC as the basis
for commencing a compliance inquiry or investigation,'' (Competitive
impact statement, IV B 2 b) I feel that future plaintiffs wanting to
commence an inquiry should also be given access to this information.
In short, as much nonsensitive documents as possible should be
public information, under the rules of the Freedom of Information
Act.
It is because of these reasons that I would like to see
amendments added that grant the TC powers of enforcement as well as
to give the general public an ability to aid in ensuring that
Microsoft does not break its settlements again.
Thank you.
MTC-00009443
From: Robert S. Kirkwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:33pm
Subject: Stop the Prosecution of a legitimate, competitive business.
Stop the Prosecution of a legitimate, competitive business.
Robert S. Kirkwood
PO Box 2078
LaBelle, FL 33975
[email protected]
MTC-00009444
From: Keith Fouts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:37pm
Subject: Let's end the Microsoft lawsuit.
Please end the suit on Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Keith A. Fouts
108 N Parkview
Coffeyville, KS 67337-1237
[email protected]
MTC-00009445
From: barneydoogan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft fiasco
Let's end the nonsense and put this sad chapter of anti-business
crusading behind us. In these trying times, my government resources
can be better utilized combating the terrorism and fanaticism that
threatens my children and the generations that follow us.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Fay
9 Greenhurst Road
West Hartford, CT 06107
MTC-00009446
From: John Tegen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
I started a company to provide applications for Be Inc.
operating system-- the BeOS. The company is OmicronSoft
(www.omicronsoft.com). I started it in 1996 so that I could provide
better quality applications found on other Operating System,
including Windows and Apple. Due to the unlawful practices of
Microsoft, they were successfully able to prevent Be Inc. to enter
the market place by restricting OEM vendors like Hitachi, Dell, and
Compaq to provide alternative operating systems to the consumer.
This crushed Be Inc. as well as software providers like ourselves.
Microsoft's actions prevented us to earn a living and prevented the
consumer to choose an alternative and better solution for their
computing needs.
It is our opinion that the current settlement with the DOJ is
far too weak to be harmful to Microsoft. If similar actions were
enforced during anti-trust litigation earlier last century, we would
have one oil company, one railroad company, and one telephone
company. In some regards, it has allowed them to unfairly to
penetrate markets that they have been trying to enter (e.g.
Education). The longer Microsoft is allowed to continue in their
normal fashion, the longer they have to make billions of dollars,
eliminate competition, and provide the US consumer and Government
poor quality products. As the DOJ is fully aware of, anti-trust
behavior is economically and physically harmful to the general
consumer and business community.
We are looking for the DOJ to enforce the anti-trust to include:
1) Full application document format disclosure and POSIX sample
to read and write to and from those documents. This include Word,
Excel, Power Point, Visio, Outlook/Exchange email, Outlook/Exchange
contacts, Outlook/Exchange events, and MS proprietary audio and
video formats.
2) Full disclosure of Win32 API calls. Those not officially
supported should be noted as such.
3) To allow OEM manufacturers the full ability to provide
alternative OS's to the consumer in both single and dual boot
configurations. To prevent them to hide alternative operating
systems.
4) To natively support open multi-media formats including MP3.
It is uncertain that these remedies will counter-act the damage that
has already occurred to software manufactures like Be and ourselves.
Even if the BeOS had 1% of the consumer market, it would have been a
multi-million dollar business to ourselves. If we had a few million
dollars, we would probably take legal action against MS for punitive
damages. I would suggest that Microsoft should pay damages to
companies like ourselves and pay a company to license the BeOS from
Palm, plus $500M to allow the BeOS be offered to the consumer
public.
Please contact me with any questions you may have regarding
this.
Regards,
John Tegen
OmicronSoft
President
(858) 695-0088
MTC-00009447
From: Robert L. Duerler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
We support the Microsoft Settlement.
This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for
them, the industry and the American economy.
Yours truly,
Robert L. Duerler
Cathy C. Duerler
Cincinnati, Ohio
MTC-00009448
From: Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:43pm
Subject: MicroSoft
You know I hope that the federal government doesnt make it a
policy to shut
[[Page 25155]]
down all successful businesses because the unsuccessful ones dont
like it!
Spare MicroSoft!
Wade Bush, a user for 20 years,
US Army Retired
MTC-00009449
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We can't afford to let this go on. Settle now it is important to
the citizens of this country.
Respectfully submitted:
Cynthia Hoskins
MTC-00009450
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft has provided a user friendly enviornment for computer
users, I fail to understand why the government must intervene in any
business that is successful. America was supposed to be a Republic,
a free enterprise. However, with the Socialist attitude of many,
those that do succeed are frowned upon. Microsoft should be allowed
to carry on their business as a business without unnecessary
government intervention. Microsoft has paid a price for the success
they have. Let them continue. Others can have success but they do
have to pay a price and a lot of work to get there. I feel Microsoft
has paid their dues and should be allowed to continue. The states
that want more should not be allowed to proceed with their
arguments.
MTC-00009451
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just settle the darn thing! Let's get on with life. How
wonderful to think a company can be penalized for being successful!
Diana Bress
MTC-00009452
From: F Leonard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:59pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft alone.
Leave Microsoft alone and go after America's Biggest Criminals--
the Clintons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fjl
MTC-00009453
From: Doris (038) John White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:01am
Subject: Anti-Trust Suit Against Microsoft
We feel quite strongly about the government filing suit against
Microsoft. We have always felt that the Clinton Administration
envied Bill Gates for his financial standing.
We would like to see this suit dropped. Micrsoft has been very
good to its employees. It has also done a great deal of
philanthropic work. Lets end this legal fiasco by dropping this suit
and letting them get back to doing what they do so well. Let them
help the economy by creating jobs.
John and Doris White
1195 Christopher Drive Apt. 1
Neenah, WI 54956-6349
MTC-00009454
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am not quite sure this e-mail will be heard, but I would just
like to share my opinion on this matter.
When did it become fashionable in this country to punish a
company for being successful? When was Capitalism replaced with
Socialism, where Big Government determines what's best for everyone?
Microsoft, as a company, basically carried the world into the
computer age. They used their expertise, innovative products, and
relentless marketing to ``sell'' mankind to the fact that everyone
needs a computer.
So they benefited from this, is it a crime? Was Henry Ford
persecuted for changing modern industrialism? No, but you didn't
hear GM and Chrysler whine like small children that Ford was unfair.
They just went out and did the best job they could, and caught up
(and surpassed Ford in GM's case). Why is it that the brakes must be
put on technology moving forward so a few misguided companies can
catch up?
In addition to this, as you destroy Microsoft's stock value, did
anyone take into account how many ``normal'' people's 401K and
retirement funds have stock in this? To save a few dollars in
software costs, people's retirement savings are being decimated.
Somehow, I cannot believe this is a better solution. I would
certainly hope that everyone would come to their senses and follow
the Federal government's lead to just settle this case and move on
to the business of getting our economy in gear.
Sincerely,
Steven Buffamonte
MTC-00009455
From: Chaim Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:25am
Subject: microsoft
Its time to settle--the faster you reach a deal and let
microsoft get back to doing what it does best making software. this
country needs is dynamic corporations especially in the high tech
field to focus on innovation and not law suits.
thank you,
Chaim Klein
President & CEO
IglooSunset, L.L.C.
http://www.igloosunset.com
MTC-00009456
From: Dick Haring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft anti trust suit
This ridiculous suit should be dropped immediately. Thanks to
stupid government bureaucrats, the economy took a major hit when
this bogus suit was brought. It impacted the stock market,
significantly, and started the tremendous decline that we are just
now turning around. This is government at it's worst, unproductive
trouble makers doing nothing but getting in the way of productive
job providing Americans. As might be expected it was formulated and
pushed along by a leftist administration headed by people who really
don't like capitalism very much.
It should be sent back to where it belongs, limbo.
RW Haring
MTC-00009457
From: James THOMPSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft case
Throw the book at Bill Gates. He has destroyed one little
computer company after another. He and Microsoft need to be punished
in the worst way possible. Breaking Microsoft up into two companies
is not enough. Make Microsoft pay and pay dearly. Even if it means a
complete shake up or near confusion in the computer industry.
MTC-00009459
From: William A Guy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly. As a monopoly, Microsoft has
crippled the
Microsoft is a monopoly. As a monopoly, Microsoft has crippled
the computer industry as a whole by styfilling inovation and
compitition in that industry. Microsoft needs to be broken into
three companies, one, operating system, two, programs and three,
internet. As a microsoft customer, if I had a real choise, I would
never use a Microsoft product again. If you investigate the new
features of the new Microsoft XP operating system, this software is
a violation of fair business practices and should not be allowed to
be marketed. This is Microsoft's way of tumbing its nose at the
judical system.
Rod Guy
MTC-00009460
From: Curtis Porter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:45am
Subject: Anti-trust abuse against Microsoft.
Dear Sirs:
Please end the Clinton era's persecution of Microsoft. This
company has blessed and benefited all of us who use computers. They
should be able to enjoy their success and rewards for doing so.
Other companies want to take advantage of Microsoft's success, and
not have to develop their own. Do not allow this.
Thank you.
Curtis T. Porter
Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan area 816-525-5277
MTC-00009461
From: Tom and Nancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:10am
Subject: STOP THE MADNESS!
Stop wasting taxpayer money on the Microsoft Case!
MTC-00009462
From: John Bronger
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25156]]
Date: 1/8/02 1:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The anti-business climate of the U.S. Goveernment, Department of
Justice, is misguided effort and uses Public funding. In my opinion
the government should spend more time working toward borders,
language and cultural matters-enforcing the constitution and using
English as a standard language as is used for aircraft control.
Microsoft is an enabler not an impediment to furthering U.S.A.
D.O.J. should be focused on threats to people instead of focusing on
the people and firms competing. Eliminate the anti-business approach
in the D.O.J.
MTC-00009463
From: atkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing in regards to an article involving the US v.
Microsoft Corporation anti-trust case, posted at http://
www.beunited.org >. The article pertains to the fateful demise of
Be, Incorporated--a California-based software company that began
developing the Be Operating System (BeOS)--and calls me to join a
world-wide network of my fellow BeOS companions in making a request
of the Department of Justice.
It is very unfortunate that Be, Inc. was unable to obtain the
success projected several years ago by myself and many of my
computer-savvy colleagues, as well as several well-known critics and
analysts of the computer sector. As a user of BeOS, I was able to
experience first-hand the numerous superior features of the
operating system over any of Microsoft's Windows family of operating
systems.
BeOS breathed much more life into my computer than Windows NT or
2000 ever did--it was much faster, more stable, more reliable, and
just as user-friendly. After becoming familiar with lightening-fast
application launches and superior access to files in BeOS, I was
disappointed when I was forced to boot into Windows 2000 to
correctly view a webpage in Internet Explorer or open an email
attachment with Microsoft Word.
The fact of the matter is that BeOS was predicted to be a major
success and somewhat a competitor to Microsoft Windows. It was
believed that the operating system would weave itself into the
mainstream of the computer market--machines would dual-boot a
Microsoft OS and BeOS and the user, depending on his or her needs,
would choose which one to boot from a start-up menu. But Microsoft
managed to keep that situation from ever happening by using their
strong-arm tactics against OEMs that attempted this, as is defined
in Section III paragraph 49 of the Findings of Fact--United States
of America v. Microsoft Corporation, ``when these dual-loaded PC
systems are turned on, Windows automatically boots; the user must
then take affirmative steps to invoke the BeOS.''
To cut to the chase of the matter, Microsoft used its monopoly
power to crush Be, Incorporated and halt the development of BeOS.
For this, Microsoft should be punished and stripped of its monopoly
powers. As is the case in BeOS, Linux, and many other operating
systems, services are extended to the user that allow for better
application programming, better access to operating system
functions, and more cross-platform ``open'' standards. In BeOS and
Linux, I can access the files on my Windows hard-drive partitions;
in Windows, when I attempt to access a non-Windows partition, it
prompts me to totally wipe the disk so that Windows can recognize
the file system. Microsoft uses its monopoly extensively, and
therefore it should be forced to adopt more open, universal, cross-
platform and operating system independent standards. It should also
be punished, as is seen fit, by a stern and unforgiving judge.
I fully trust that you, representing the Department of Justice,
will use all of the resources at your disposal to make correct the
situation that Microsoft has created using its anti-competitive and
monopolistic grip over the computer industry.
Most sincerely,
William Dee Atkins
[email protected]
MTC-00009464
From: Nelsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:43am
Subject: It will be very good for the US economy if this case was
settled
It will be very good for the US economy if this case was settled
prior to the March hearings. The nine states that are holding out
are obviously trying to protect their companies in their own state.
e.g. Oracle, AOL, Sun Microsystems etc. They are putting themselves
above the consumer by delaying the settlement. All they want is
their pound of flesh, nothing more. It is getting so obvious that
hopefully the judge will see through it. It was a good thing the DOJ
made the effort to settle with Microsoft. The sooner it is over, the
better it will be for the stock market and the consuming public.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Charles D Nelson
[email protected]
MTC-00009465
From: Richard Isley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:44am
Subject: Microsoft
So Microsoft did it bigger & BETTER than the other guys and made
it to the top of the mountain. That's the American Way folks. Let's
stop beating up our winners and start rewarding them instead. It's
time to lay off Microsoft folks and get on with some important
things.
MTC-00009466
From: larry hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 l:52am
As a Microsoft software consumer and stockholder, I feel that
the settlement is fair. To be honest, I have not followed every
aspect of the case and must rely on the wisdom of our judicial
system. I feel that a company should not have to spend as much time
and money to fight court cases as Microsoft. American businesses and
consumers appear to be jealous of business success. Microsoft was
always the best game in town in my opinion, because its products fit
together and are easy to use.
Connectivity and easy-of-use appeals to me as a consumer.
MTC-00009467
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:55am
Subject: Think
Dear Justice Department,
Pls forget about Microsoft case. They have done something for
this country that could not be forgotten in the history of this
entire world. They have brought enough money to feed millions of
Americans. I believe that's enough. In any free world people just
want to sue people for fun or nothing or to satisfy themselves by
taking the shadow of the law. Just kick these people out so
Microsoft can do some other job and shake the World. Please.
Thanks
David John
MTC-00009468
From: Felipe Contreras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:57am
Subject: My opinion
I'm not a technology profesional, nor an important member of any
relevant organization, I'm just a young Linux user from Mexico.
Anyway, I heard that even my opinion could be important for this
matters so here it is.
I started with computers about 10 years ago, I in that moment
there was no option for an OS, only Microsoft's DOS, or Windows 3.1.
I was influened by videogames and I was very entusiast about doing
the mine one, unfortunatedly the best development tool I had was
Microsoft's QBasic, and I had not any help to develop a game.
As the time went on I learned more and more, until one day I
finally tryied the new operating system for experienced computer
users, Linux. Since then I learned a lot of the UNIX systems, and
the OpenSource movement. This was a complete new world for me, and
withouth knowing it endless posibilites for development were at my
hands. I became aware that best of the best in the computer world
was in the linux world, and the best, they were working by will in
doing this world better, working for giving people like me the
posibilities for developing whatever they want.
In my humble opinion comercial companies are just that, as the
name says they exist to make money. Also, as far as I know it's much
easier to make money doing bad things, inversely proportional.
Microsoft, being a company with so much money, I can't think that
their main concern is anything else than money, and that they
gathered so much that they must have been some things not very good,
at least not ethical.
When I became concerned of such thigs, I saw the workings of the
world different. If one gets involucred with the Linux world it
[[Page 25157]]
becomes obvious that Microsoft is evil, and Linux is good. Nobody is
perfect, but the intentions of the OpenSource movement are good,
while the ones of the Microsoft Corporation, are bad, making money.
The OpenSource movement consists of scatered efforts withouth one
main organization, at the contrary of Microsoft which is very
organized and doesn't live any matter untouched, even with the great
power they have, Linux, a hobbie work of some people done at their
free time, is getting each time bigger ``market''. Obviously this
means competence to Microsoft and it will not stand with arms
crossed, if the resoultion of the DOJ let's them, they'll try to
make clear to everyone that Microsoft is better (win over Linux),
and their strategies obviously work.
Althought I think that everyone with enought intelect to analize
the implications of OpenSource, or at least with tasting the power
of it will never return to the propertary and closed environment of
the Microsoft's realm, if Microsoft win, some people (like me) might
never try Linux.
Felipe Contreras
MTC-00009469
From: gleeam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:16am
Subject: Microsoft
It's time to stop this unwarranted assault on American
businesses.
Stop the Microsoft war started by that criminal Clinton.
Why is the government punishing achievement, instead of
rewarding it?
Gary & Mary Martin
4148 Meade Lake Road
Millington. TN 38053
MTC-00009470
From: John Shea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:50am
Subject: Clinton's Anti-trust Abuses
Please end this crapola now, today! Microsoft has been kind to
individuals and businesses and does not deserve the beating it
continues to receive from the Justice Department and individual
states. Microsoft has done a lot of good for America and the world.
Bill Gates is a champion and should be treated as such..
Thanks for listening.
John Shea
1673 Springbrook Road
Lafayette, CA 94549
MTC-00009471
From: Sandra Dillard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:13am
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
Please bring sanity back to government and stop the Clinton-Reno
antitrust suit. I don't believe there was any real basis for the
suit. It was all politics to attack big business. I even suspect it
was because Bill Gates wouldn't be black mailed into a large
contribution to the Democratic party. This is very important to our
economic recovery and the stock markets recovery too. Thank you for
listening and good luck on cleaning out the Clinton messes.
Mrs. Sandra A. Dillard
P. O. Box 39
N. Bonneville, WA 98639
[email protected]
MTC-00009472
From: Jinny Dorner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:24am
Subject: Lawsuits
Please get off the back of Bill Gates and Microsoft. When did it
become a crime to be successful in this country? Any of us can
compete if we want to and have a better product.
regards,
Jinny Dorner
MTC-00009473
From: David Brosnan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 4:02am
Subject: Right or wrong?
To whom it concerns,
It is well documented that Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen ``stole'' the
ideas that gave them the foundation to build their fortune on. Now
they have the money and the power to buy up anything that looks like
potential competition, re-jig it to their ethos and call it a
Microsoft product. Their list of failures after they took over good
potential products makes for quiet interesting reading, if you take
the time, and their answer is to bring out the ``latest'' version
(i.e. patch up the mistakes and see does it work). There is no come
back for ``down time'' for users. If it was any other industry, you
could sue their butt off to recover lost time and profits, but
because they monopolise the market, there is no alternative worth
having. They give the consumer the ``middle finger'' and know that
they can do so without worrying about repercussions. Mr. Gates now
gives a lot of money to good causes and that is commendable. But Mr.
Gates only did it when he had more money than he or his heirs could
ever spend, and it would seem, when the writing was on the wall that
the industry was getting fed up with being told what the future
would be according to Microsoft, that becoming a great philantophist
would fool the public into believing that a nice man like him could
not possibly be an ogre. Competition begets corruption and in this
case megomania, but it also fosters new ideas and inovation. Mr.
Gates by his actions would like to control the market and dictate
what we will have in ``the future according to Gates''. God better
look out if Mr. Gates ever ``gets religion''. You as a nation do not
put your fate in the hands of your President alone, you have your
fail safe procedures. Please do not allow this man to be above all
others. He does not need the money anymore so why should he object
to his company being divided up into smaller parts and creating
healthy competition, unless it is his ego he sees as being tampered
with. You are our fail safe net, don't be deterred it what you
believe is the right thing to do.
Rgds
http://www.dbcomp.ie/> anim.gif (59787 bytes) http://
www.dbcomp.ie/>
David Brosnan * Managing Director * DB Computer Solutions
Limerick Business Complex * Raheen Business Park* Limerick--
Ireland
Phone: +353-61-480-980 Fax: +353-61-225-131
mailto:[email protected]> David [email protected] *
http://www.dbcomp.ie/> http://www.dbcomp.ie/
MTC-00009474
From: Kathy West Woodward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:18am
I wish to thank you for your continuing pursuit of a fair
settlement for the people and corporations of this country that
have, for years, been covertly violated by Bill Gates and Microsoft.
His mafia-like tactics, and proclaiming of innocence, as well as his
propensity for getting away with most of it, are legendary within
the computer industry and obvious to the educated consumer.
Both Mr. Gates and our previous President have had the
opportunity to lie, cheat and spiritually mess with this country...
maybe there ought to be a ``reality show'' competition between them
to see which one more deserves the ``Slick Willie'' moniker. :)
Please dont let Microsoft continue their illegal and
uncapitalistic practices. Fair competition, without fear of
reprisals or blackmail, is what our phenomenal capitalistic system
should be based on. Those who don't respect that premise, regardless
of how many pockets they line, should be held strongly and surely
accountable for thier actions.
Kathy Woodward
[email protected]
MTC-00009475
From: olivier serrano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
sir,
the beos operating system was a serious alternative to
microsoft. in my opinion, it could be even better. I think the
position that has been brought to beos was due to microsoft's
monopol. i would like the beos project to come back on worldwide
network place of operating systems to bring people possibility to
choose between several products. and different ways to use
computers.
sincerly
olivier serrano
MTC-00009477
From: Biggy Boy Toddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is clearly a monopoly, and clearly at fault if not
directly then indirectly (thru its intimidation) for BeOS and the
BeIA failure in the marketplace. I'm for a decision to make
Microsoft pay a penalty, not with software or with hardware (used
and worthless) but with hard cash, cash as in American dollars. A
fund should be set up for the billions it should pay, and that fund
should immediately be used to educate the public that users of
computer hardware have alternatives. Education to the users is
important, and then the funds be distributed
[[Page 25158]]
to the schools in question who have been educated they have an
alternative to choose. Bottomline is this, Microsoft is a monopoly,
and it has clearly abused its monopolistic position in the past 10+
years to make substandard software, which has caused billions in
damages and made more than enough folks that know better about
technology pull their hair out knowing such technology is being lost
forever and not marketed because folks are flat out afraid of the
Microsoft you folks seem to love (by giving them a settlement that
is beyond comprehension, you folks at the DOJ should either be
fired, or slapped around with a wet trout).
Best wishes
MTC-00009478
From: Don Bowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:24am
Subject: Give it a break
Out here in the real world the public considers the entire
government case against Microsoft to be a sham.
It's time to stop. Go find some real criminals and stop wasting
my money.
Don
Donald E Bowler
1090 Forbes Street
Fredericksburg, Va. 22405
[email protected]
MTC-00009479
From: Rick Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Case
Justice Department
Stop the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy.
Rick Friedman
104 Charlemagne Circle
Harvest, AL 35749
MTC-00009480
From: Tony Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:44am
Subject: Comment
Good morning
I am chief geek of my enterprise. As system administrator I have
considerable freedom to do what I wish but the requirement to relate
to Microsoft using clients, who produce for example .doc files,
means that we have to own use Microsoft products. I have asked for
information about file structures but am told it is proprietary
information.
For some of my clients, we go to considerable lengths to allow
them to reproduce material in non Microsoft format. Why? The
suggestion is that Microsoft will move to annual licensing. Should
they do that and, for whatever reason, my client choose not to
continue to purchase these licences all their intellectual property
held in Microsoft proprietary file formats will become inaccessible
to them. Please require Microsoft to release the structure of their
data forms so that users of other software may import their files.
Please insist that Microsoft take no action which will deny any
user of their software continuing free access to that user's
intellectual property.
Tony Davis
DAVIS INTERNET CONSULTING
MTC-00009481
From: Sam Sheterom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft
It is time for the Justice Department to end this witch hunt
against Microsoft. Free Enterprise works if the government will let
it. Former president Clinton was against Free Enterprise and
therefore sent his lap dog Janet Reno to attack Microsoft. Why?
Because they were successful? Because they were innovative? No
because they were the number one in software. The competitors whined
and cried to Clinton and he said ``Oh, how awful, you're not the
best so I'll attack the best and break them up. that way the not so
goods can be bigger.'' (Not an exact quote).
It's time to stop! To put everything to bed and leave well
enough alone. Let free enterprise work the way it's supposed to. The
cream always floats to the top.
Respectfully
Samuel G. Sheterom, Jr.
MTC-00009482
From: Velma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
I believe the government should keep it's hands out of the
Microsoft situation. If other companies don't like the way Microsoft
is selling so well in the market place, they should invent another
system that is better. . . isn't that the American way??? The
government should drop any and all lawsuits against Microsoft.
Velma A. Moore
MTC-00009483
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:56am
Subject: Microsoft Case
You need to get off the back of Microsoft. Microsoft has
provided us with standardization which has increased the
productivity in application writing, as well as, the use off OS and
office components. Every corp., including the government has
benefited.
Besides, I observe prejudice. Why are you not equally concerned
about the harmful internet, media monopoloies ie. AOL and COMSAT? In
my opinion, they exist only to be damaging.
MTC-00009484
From: Alex Burkhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex H. Burkhart
6607 Northshore Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37919
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The intention of this letter is for me to go on record as being
a supporter of the settlement that brought an end to the antitrust
lawsuit between the Department of Justice and the Microsoft
Corporation. The lawsuit dragged on for three years, and now that it
is over, the economy has a chance to get back to where it used to
be.
The economic downturn actually started when the suit against
Microsoft was announced, and now the United States is in a
recession. I cannot understand how the government missed the fact
that the suit against Microsoft was actually detrimental to the
economy. However, all of that is behind us now, and we must focus on
getting back to where we used to be. The settlement is good for
competition and the economy, and we must push forward.
Thank you for your time, and again, I am going on record as
supporting the settlement between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice.
Sincerely,
Alex Burkhart
MTC-00009485
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get on with the real world and finish this waste of
taxpayers--mine--dollars.
Complete this phony anti trust farse.
Milo valencic
MTC-00009486
From: joel lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a taxpayer and a citizen of this great nation, I urge you to
agree to the settlement with Microsoft and end this abuse of the
Anti-Trust Act by the Justice Department.
Sincerely,
Joel Lewis
[[Page 25159]]
MTC-00009487
From: Ingo Stainer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Anti Trust Division of the Department of Justice
Let me just mention a statement from the settlement itself:
``Following a 7-day trial in late 1998 and early 1999, the United
States District Court found that Microsoft had violated both
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. On appeal, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously affirmed
portions of the district court's finding and conclusion that
Microsoft illegally maintained its operating system monopoly in
violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, but reversed and remanded
other portions of the district court's determinations. Specifically,
the court of appeals reversed the district court's determination
that Microsoft violated section 2 by illegally attempting to
monopolize the Internet browser market and remanded the district
court's determination that Microsoft violated section 1 of the
Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its browser to its operating
system.''
That means Microsoft found guilty in illegally maintaining its
monopoly. With the settlement agreement Microsoft would be allowed
to further on maintain this monopoly.
That would bind the whole Operating System and Internet
development to Microsoft.
And that would result into the well known development speed of
selling a release, releasing some bug fixes, selling a new version
(with some new features and even more bugs), releasing bug fixes
again and then starting all over again.
Microsoft is not interested in putting more effort to improve
its product but in selling more software at high prices with low
reliability. And the reason why they can do that is that they have
the OS monopoly. Probably you are wondering why I say so and still
use Microsoft. The reason is that our company sells solutions of
third party software developers who only provide support for
Microsoft Operating Systems due to the monopoly they have.
I am trying to avoid Microsoft Software in many cases because of
its low reliability and incalculability. Being a System
Administrator for Windows and Unix I know what I am talking about.
Agreeing to this settlement would be a big win for Microsoft and
its lawyers but would mean great loss for all Computer users. This
is my personal statement and does in no way reflect any company
opinion.
Best regards
Ingo Stainer
Jambou
(+49 (89) 410 738--82, mobile: ++49 (0) 179 510 38 99
mailto:[email protected] Visit our WebSite: http://
www.jambou.com
MTC-00009488
From: The Dour Celt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Case
Let's drop the charade perpetuated by Bill Clinton and Janet
Reno that successful businesses must be engaging in unfair business
practices. Microsoft has no more a monopoly in software than IBM had
in desktop computers. When someone comes along with something
better, the consumer will buy it.
Arthur McGinley
[email protected]
MTC-00009489
From: Barbara Tomek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:34am
Subject: Microsoft
I think it is time to end the abuses of the Clinton
administration and time to quit wasting the taxpayers money on
Microsoft. It does not make sense to punish a company for being good
and being able to capture most of the market.
Thank you, Barbara Tomek
MTC-00009490
From: Duane Erlandson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:57am
Subject: Settlement
I support the Microsoft settlement that has been proposed--
please do not waste any more time and money going after a company
that is not causing harm.
Thank you.
MTC-00009491
From: adinardi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:04am
Subject: please wake up
Get off the stick and let the company that had more to do with
advancing technology do business their own way. If you had some
sense you would tell would be entrepreneurs to follow Microsoft's
lead. Truly this is what America can offer you if you develop a
product so good that people DO NOT want anything less. Yet you
stifle the best to prove some juvenile point.
A DiNardi
East Haddam CT
MTC-00009492
From: Hasenbein George-G14197
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end the Clinton-era misuse of the Anti-Trust laws. Let
real competition settle the issue.
Sincerely,
George H. Hasenbein
MTC-00009493
From: Eric Kassan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
I believe the proposed federal settlement is excessive and I am
more than appalled that my state, California, claims more damages
are in order. My state's attorney general and the Department of
Justice to a lesser extent are NOT acting on my behalf or in my best
interest or the interest of the citizens of the United States by
attacking the company most responsible for the solid economy of the
1990s. It is not a coincidence that the economic downturn and the
initial judgment occurred near the same time.
Thank you.
Eric Kassan
Woodland Hills, CA
MTC-00009494
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:28am
Subject: trial
BILL GATES SHOULD BE GIVEN A TRIAL DELAY!
MTC-00009495
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a consumer of computer hardware and software products, both
as aretail home user, and as owner and operator of an $18,000,000
per year information technology services consulting company. My
viewpoint encompasses both personal and business aspects, and it is
that my government should settle this lawsuit immediately, without
further harassment of Microsoft, on these grounds.
1. I remember when there was no real market leader in this area
and there was rampant, costly, unproductive competition. Companies
and consumers wasted much money on products that were incompatible,
inefficient, poorly produced and all too often short lived.
Microsoft's technical and market leadership has produced an orderly
market, where users of this technology can invest with the certainty
that the product and vendor will be there tomorrow, and that this
investment will not be wasted. Yet there is still room for true
invention, as new products are still produced, even today. LINUX
software is an example.
2. This entire litigation has roots in the political process. In
the pre-'96 national election process, Bill Clinton went to Silicon
Valley to raise funds for the his reelection and his Democratic
party. The largest contributors were the Barksdales and Ellisons
(Netscape and Oracle) of the technology world, the biggest
complainers about and competitors to Microsoft. Lo and behold,
shortly after he raised millions of dollars from them, the United
States Department of Justice initiated this lawsuit.
3. At a personal level, I see the United States government using
my tax dollars to cripple one of the most successful companies, and
entrepreneurs, of our modern times, for very dubious reasons and
non-existant benefits to anyone but the trial lawyers and the
Silicon Valley moguls. And as an entrepreneur in my own right,
albeit a lesser scale than Bill Gates, I see my government's efforts
here as a disgusting bullying by lawyers who produce nothing against
people who actually produce goods, services and jobs for society.
Kenneth Podd = [email protected]
MTC-00009496
From: John Paoloemilio
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25160]]
Date: 1/8/02 8:31am
Subject: Please stop the govt. intrusion on microsoft and any
Please stop the govt. intrusion on microsoft and any other co. in
the US,,let the free market determine the outcome of microsoft.
Thank you
John Paoloemilio
MTC-00009497
From: FRANK MEGOW SR.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:33am
Subject: microsoft farce
Get off microsoft's back the only reason this has gone this far
is Bill Gates wouldn't lay down and play dead to the democrats
demand for money.
Sgt Frank J. Megow Sr. (retired USA)
MTC-00009498
From: Josephine Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:35am
Subject: Picking on Gates
Why doesn't the justice department go after the big monopoly of
our goverment instead of picking on Gates who has done more to keep
our economy growing than any fat politician in Washington? Michael
Gates has earned every cent that he has. I thought there was some-
thing called ``Free Enterprise'' in this country. I do not begrudge
anyone the fruit of their own labor. The goverment should not be
allowed to take anything from any individual (or his corporation)
and distribute it to another. By squashing those we deem more
successful than ourselves we stifle our own quest for excellence.
Let's learn from Gates instead of destroying him.
MTC-00009499
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen.
I don't often write to voice my opinion, I guess that I'm just
part of the so called ``silent majority.'' But in this case, I'm
very happy to report that you, my government did the right thing by
settling the Microsoft case. It's not often that I can say this with
conviction. Now we can all go back to doing more important things,
like finding Osoma Bin Laden and finding what really happened with
the ``Rich'' payoff to President Clinton.
Sincerely,
M. V. Favetti
6445 State Rd.
Parma, OH 44134
MTC-00009500
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:48am
Subject: get it over with
I am commenting on the Microsoft anti-trust case. Please accept
the settlement on the table and end the witchhunt. I can't believe
that in America if you build a better product and proceed to whip
everybody's butt in the marketplace that you end up in court over
it. What kind of message is this sending to would be entrepeneurs in
the greatest country in the world? We are not (yet) a socialist
country and freedom to make the best products and the most profits
must be preserved. End it now. Thank you for accepting my comments.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Holtz
Altoona, PA
MTC-00009501
From: Bruce H. Uhl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Justice Department
I am writing to let you know that I support the Microsoft
agreement.
It is time to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse. The
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
The Microsoft settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to
all parties involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement
is good for them, the industry and the American economy.
Sincerely,
Bruce Uhl
[email protected]
MTC-00009502
From: gary n. hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:50am
Subject: microsoft settlement
i support the microsoft settlement. it is time to let the
companies and consumers decide on what is best by using the market
place rather than the courtroom.
gary n. hays
MTC-00009503
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:51am
It is time to end the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse--I
support the It is time to end the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse--
I support the Microsoft settlement. The trial squandered taxpayers'
money, was a nuisance to consumers and a serious deterent to
investors in the high-tech industry. It is time to end this trial
and the wasteful spending accompanying it so the industry and the
economy can get back on its feet again. A settlement will be good
for consumers, the industry and the economy.
Thank you.
MTC-00009504
From: DON CAMPBELL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:54am
Subject: MICROSOFT
Can you imagine the price of computer software had Microsoft not
had the innovative touch. Did they have a monopoly, probably yes,
only after they provided the innovativeness to succeed in product
development. They cannot be nearly as bad as big oil after all their
mergers. U.S. broke this up once, do they have to again.
Hit Microsoft with a reasonable penalty, get the states' dollar
hungry lawyers of their backs and let them do business in a revised
way.
DON CAMPBELL
MTC-00009505
From: Schulze, Bob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 9:02am
Subject: one company for OS-another for apps
The answer is: the company that creates the operating system
MUST be seperate from those that make the applications for it.
Otherwise, the OS can keep changing/shifting on the competitors
(making their apps not work as dependably) while catering/designing
to the nuances and changes of their own applications.
This has been happening for years and it's only getting worse.
AND.......whatever you do, DON'T PUNISH?.. MS BY LETTING THEM FLOOD
THE EDUCATION DEPT WITH THEIR OS AND APPS.....to put it politely,
that is the complete opposite direction and effect.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob Schulze
Network CAD Specialist
Elcom Services Group
ph: 215-826-6134
fx: 419-793-3814
MTC-00009506
From: Creedy, Rosemary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 9:02am
Subject: Microsoft judgment
EXCELLENCE AND SECURITY
Excellence and security are what is needed within the IT
industry. Microsoft should be restricted because they are not the
BEST in all areas. We need to allow free IT growth in a competitive
market or we shall all be worse off. Example: There are useful
little cars but it would not encourage excellence if they were
automatically ``included'' with a road tax/licence for a vehicle.
This would reduce the market share for specialist excellent cars at
the top of the range.
Please uphold the court judgment against Microsoft in a manner
that will truly stop Microsoft products being forced onto consumers.
``Punishing'' Microsoft by ``allowing'' them to donate hundreds of
PCs to schools is hardly a way of reducing their encroachment. This
method of fining Microsoft should not be allowed. Once their
stranglehold is complete they will be free to increase licence fees
every year and the world will be held to ransom.
[[Page 25161]]
Microsoft has already invaded US government departments and is
fast taking over all IT implementations in the UK government. A
commercial corporation should not be placed in a position where it
can make demands on the governments of countries. There should be a
ruling that forces Microsoft to make available the basic code that
would allow all docs produced in Microsoft to be used by other
software packages. Also Microsoft should not be allowed to build in
``planned obsolescence'' which forces users into an endless cycle of
having to upgrade their software in order to be able to read email
attachments from the latest Microsoft product.
What would the motor industry be like if we were forced to
upgrade all the electronic components in the car every year in order
to be able to continue to use certain major highways?
It could even be said the Microsoft does not sell the goods that
it purports to sell as it does not notify the buyer that the full
functionality of the product will begin to decrease after about 6
months as it becomes less and less compatible with the newer
releases of Microsoft software. If Microsoft did not hold this
unacceptable monopoly it would be possible to send older second-hand
PC's and software to third world countries for their use. This is
not practical when the software becomes obsolete simply because it
is no longer compatible with the latest Microsoft offering.
Microsoft is so intent on increasing their market share that
they are exposing us to enormous risks from hackers and viruses.
Please free us form the tyranny of Microsoft and encourage them to
use their considerable resources and expertise to pursue excellence
and security. If they are as good as they think they are they should
be able to cope with excellent competition and this should serve to
spur them on to greater things. Microsoft were found GUILTY ---
please allow the judgment to be EFFECTIVE in RESTRICTING their
monopoly and unacceptable domination of the IT industry.
Rosemary Creedy
Website Administration Officer
Education Department
4th floor
New Town Hall
Wandsworth Borough Council
Wandsworth High Street
London
SW18 2PU
tel. 020 8871-8012
[email protected]
MTC-00009507
From: Kumarjit Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir(s), it is great to know that the DoJ has agreed upon a
settlement with Microsoft. I am not only a law student, but have
been using Microsoft MSDOS since 1986 on an IBM 8088 PC. i know that
all the products are not perfect but Microsoft does come up with
excellent programs such as Word 97 and Win 95. it would indeed be an
overkill to see the company broken up simply because their OS
outsold those of others. My fullest support for Microsoft!!
Kumarjit Ray
Calcutta, India
MTC-00009508
From: DeLoy Denning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:06am
Subject: End Clinton Witch Hunt
With all due respect, I would like to see the matter with
Microsoft setteled without further court action.
I am a microsoft customer and I find the cries of unfair are not
justified. I do not use all of the products supplied with Microsoft
and feel that choice to use or not use is up to me, not the courts.
Other companies package other programs with their packages, do we go
after them next.
I am sure that I do not understand all the parts of this
lawsuit, but I know that putting business down does not enhance our
ecconomy.
Sincerely,
DeLoy Denning
MTC-00009509
From: Alan Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:59am
Subject: Give Microsoft hell
I think the consumer will be better served if Microsoft is
broken up and Bill Gates goes to jail. Filing an anti-trust law suit
against Microsoft is probably the only good thing the Clinton
administration did. Of course they fouled that up also. Bill Gates
and Microsoft are the same kind of obstacle to progress and free
enterprise that Bell telephone was. Maybe worse. Liberty and the
consumer are not served when one person or company is able to thwart
the development of new technologies that would be good for the
consumer. Microsoft is a blatant obstacle to competition and free
enterprise. On this issue I strongly disagree with USDOJ.
AWJ
Alan W. Jorgensen
MHTN Architects, Inc.
420 East South Temple, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Phone: (801) 595-6700 Fax: (801) 595-6717
www.mhtn.com
[email protected]
MTC-00009510
From: barbara hatch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:08am
Subject: suit
The next thing will be complete Socialism by liberals in that
they will redistribute all the wealth in the country because ``it's
not fair''. Well, life's not fair, so get a grip and get on with it.
You either survive and thrive, or snooze and loose!!! Leave
Microsoft alone! Common sense is not so common.
Voltaire
MTC-00009511
From: Clifton Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement comments
Sirs:
Please review the findings of fact from this case and I believe
therefor that the proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement as
reported in the media is inadequate!
Microsoft has clearly behaved in a anti-consume and predatory
manner. Microsoft has inhibited innovative competition by
intimidation and acquisition. Microsoft has a poor historical record
on the use of personal information in violation of its own published
privacy policies. Microsoft has, by its predatory practices,
discouraged investment capital in tech industry.
Microsoft has, by its restrictive oem licensing practices, has
intimidated the oems from offering non-Microsoft products
preinstalled on new computers. Microsoft has a clear history of co-
oping open standards into their proprietary standards. Such as
instant messaging, JAVA, XML, etc. I am sure that there are many
more examples, but as a layman and not a computer expert, these are
the ones that I am aware of. Microsoft has decreased entrepreneurs
in tech industry because of their ruthless suppression of competing
technologies or businesses that they perceive as a threat.
Microsoft has used subterfuge in the guise of technical hype
instead of real unbiased technical merit to attack alternative
products. Microsoft has so restricted access to their software
details as to make it extremely difficult for non-Microsoft products
to interact correctly with Microsoft products. As an example of
this, they often change the file format of their programs so that
third party products can not read data files of these newer
versions, thus compelling consumers to buy more Microsoft's software
instead of alternates.
The Microsoft offer to supply products to schools further
expands their monopoly in the marketplace. It would be more in the
spirit of antitrust to give these schools the cash to spend on the
products of their chose without the interference of Microsoft!
Microsoft has not complied with the word and spirit of earlier
settlements and this should therefor demand the most strict controls
in this settlement to enforce compliance!
Respectfully,
Clifton Patrick
Property & Casualty Insurance
119 Brookside Ave.
Route 17M
Chester, NY 10918
Voice and fax 845-469-7645
MTC-00009512
From: Billie Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft investigation
It's time to end the Microsoft investigation. What a waste of
taxpayers' money.
Billie Burns
Williams Brothers Construction Co., Inc.
713-522-9821
fax: 713-520-5247
MTC-00009513
From: Bailey S Kurtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:13am
Subject: Lawsuit
[[Page 25162]]
Please end this insane lawsuit against Microsoft. Thank God the
Clinton's years are over.
Bailey Kurtz
Lexington, KY
MTC-00009514
From: armen.meguerditchian@us. pwcglobal.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I am writing in support of further resistance to the proposed
national settlement. As part of an organization which implements
large software packages to corporate desktops, I find we are often
in the situation where Microsoft's divergent support of industry
standards (or clear refusal, as in the case of Java) cause us to
create functional work-arounds to be able to implement software to
the clients.
The impact of this is measured in soft dollars, as it entails
hundreds of additional man hours to make these products work
together. Armen Meguerditchian
Principal Consultant
Note that these are my own views and not necessarily
representative of the entire firm.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.
MTC-00009516
From: Terry Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:21am
Subject: Time to Let it Go
Give up on this. Time to let it go. Few have done as much for
this country than has Bill Gates. Stop the pandering to those
Clilnton era attorneys and dump it.
Terry Price
Reading, Pennsylvania
MTC-00009517
From: jdca@capital. net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:21am
Subject: Feedback on Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
[email protected]>
To whom it may concern:
First of all let me say I'm glad to see that the DOJ has backed
off somewhat on the severity of the penalty phase of this ant-trut
trial. However, there are many in the software industry that will
complain and raise issues no matter what the outcome. In particular
I am talking about the Sun's and Oracles of the world. They are, in
my opinion, a bunch of whiners. Consumers have a choice in what OS
and what apps they put on their desktop. It just so happens that Sun
and Oracle are not preferred products for most home users and many
businesses. The suite of applications for hte Windows environment is
much, much larger than any of the other OS's because it's the most
popular. There is a market in the Windows environment for software
developers to create products. Microsoft should not be penalized for
this. In addtion, as a software developer, Microsoft in no way
controls the software development environment for Internet
applications. In fact, they are a step behind the Sun's, Oracle's
and Unix flavors of the world. One could just as easily build an
enterprise on Solaris, Apache and Oracle DBMS applications as it
could on Microsoft. A fact that MS realizes ala .NET.
Now that the desktop OS is moving in the direction of just an
Internet browser, the playing field is definitely level. If there is
to be any punitive damages directed toward Microsoft the focus must
be narrowed down to a clear anti-trust issue and not directed at the
company as a whole by breaking it up. Breaking the company up is a
gross exageration of the intent of the anti-trust laws. The anti-
trust laws are outdated when it comes to technology and technology
companies. What could be considered a monopoly one day may not even
exist the next. Just look at Xerox, Apple (as it related to the
Apple II), Texas Instruments. All were leaders in their respective
industries at one time but are now just minor players in the global
industry.
Thanks for taking this feedback.
Sincerely,
Jeff Yates
Albany, NY
MTC-00009518
From: Robert M. Taylor Sr MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
It appears to be in everyone's interest to settle the Microsoft
law suit as quickly as possible. The proposed agreement seems
equitable.
MTC-00009519
From: Andrew C. Bairnsfather
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:25am
Subject: Conflict of Interest
Conflict of Interest
I don't think you are stupid. On the contrary, but I am still
going to try to step through this logically and hopefully not
confusingly or insultingly, although I do take a cynical and
plodding tone from time to time, please don't take it personally.
Thanks. First, a short quote from Steve Ballmer.
From http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/
0,4586,5100151,00.html?chkpt=zdnnpltp01>:
``We went and said, 'Hey, we have some ideas for an all-purpose
box, kind of a PC, kind of a video game machine, kind of a set-top
box.' You know what they said? They said, 'Get outta Dodge, we're
not going to write software for that thing,''' Ballmer said. I
believe I know one of the most significant reasons as to why they
said that to Mr. Ballmer's face.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Microsoft already writes the operating system. AND they also
have grown increasingly in control of many software application
markets: word processors, spread sheets, presentation applications,
databases, web browsers, and continue to threaten the availability,
and usability of many ``3rd party'' software applications.
Microsoft's control would be nearly total. Third party vendors
can write software to Microsoft's X Box API and if they do a good
job they can even re-sell some of the code they've written for their
own games to other companies to use. This is nothing new I believe.
But the problem is when Microsoft takes other people's code and
includes it in their system. I don't remember how many years ago it
was, but MS did incorporate software for disk compression in their
operating system, disk compression software that wasn't theirs. They
lost in court, had to pay damages I believe, and had to recall many
copies of MS DOS 6 something--I think it was during that version of
MS DOS.
Apple also took them to court for stealing parts of QuickTime.
Fortunately for Apple, unlike the disk compression incident, the
pirated QuickTime code was only in beta copies of the Microsoft
software; Microsoft was distributing it, but only to individuals/
organizations writing code (or otherwise joined to them as a
developer) for Microsoft's operating systems.
There are three main layers you can think of when dealing with a
computer. Even four, but the fourth is created by you.
1. Hardware. Akin to the engine, it's the physical part.
2. Operating System. Provides basic (and advanced ;-)
functionality to the applications (windows, menus, buttons, etc...),
provides a means to control the hardware (volume, monitor
brightness/contrast).
3. Applications. You run these to create and manipulate data.
4. Data you create and/or push around. Since Microsoft has so
many operating systems it seems perfectly logical to divide them up
in to two companies to divide their conflict of interest: a system
software company, and an application vendor. They also have hardware
offerings, but I know very little about it. So I don't know what to
do with their hardware offerings at this point, to have them go to
the OS company or the application company, or have them be their own
company if they want. Oh, I left out the part where they also want
to own the cable companies that install, and tend the wires to the
house from the distribution points. Hmm...I think they already do
own a number. And I also shouldn't leave out the part about how they
own a broadcasting company it seems, MSNBC. Do I really think I'm
going to see objective and continuously fair news items, TV shows,
etc.., on a station that's owned by Microsoft? No. The content will
be influenced. (On a side note I don't believe media outlets should
be owned by product vendors.) So let's see, they already own a
broadcasting company, they own some cable companies that bring it to
your door, they attempted to make a box the cable will connect to,
and they write the operating system for the box, and they also write
games for the box.
I think even their developers recognized a bad thing when they
saw it. Here is the next paragraph of the article where Steve says
the XBox is just the start. ``We came back a year later and we said
OK, we're going to start by
[[Page 25163]]
doing the world's greatest video game machine, and they said OK,
let's talk,'' Ballmer said.
The last paragraph:
``We know we have to succeed, but there is a broader concept
there that we will pursue at some point,'' Ballmer said. ``You can
say, is it the end of the road or is there a bigger play? And the
answer is yeah, there's a bigger play we hope to get over time.''
Proverbs 20:5, ``The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters
........'' (Disclaimer: Am I saying Apple should be immune to being
``broken up''? No, at some point it could become necessary to divide
Apple along the aforementioned logical parts (hardware, operating
system, applications) but Apple is hardly an economic threat to the
same number of companies that Microsoft is now.
I saw a commercial when I lived in Alabama. It was a commercial
for Microsoft in general, not a product spot light, but just a
``warm fuzzy'' commercial touting their good deeds in education and
such. However they, didn't show many, if any at all, computers
running any of their operating systems. They showed Apple hardware
and the Macintosh operating system. The advertisement even focused
in on children using the computer and interacting with a panoramic
photograph of a scene, using QuickTime. They were already caught
once stealing actual lines of code from QuickTime and here they are
confusing the audience in to believing the panorama was being viewed
on a Microsoft operating system. The irony is that you *can* view a
QuickTime panorama on Microsoft operating systems, but that's thanks
to Apple writing that software, not thanks to Microsoft as the
advertisement incorrectly displays.)
I believe my small business in Alabama where I tried to
establish myself taking panoramic photographs was impacted
negatively by Microsoft. Fortunately for me I now work for a company
where I can take panoramic photographs. But I am upset at the
thought of Microsoft using its monopoly in operating systems and
applications to intimidate and influence hardware manufacturers to
perpetuate Microsoft's operating system AND application monopolies.
In other words Microsoft can influence hardware vendors not to
include QuickTime on the hardware they ship. Apple is not going to
go so low as to write software that intentionally crashes, slows
down, or wreaks other havoc on the system (MS Word 6 ahem). I guess
I'm tired of ranting now. But I still continue to be amazed at the
number of people who don't see that there is a huge conflict of
interest in the places Microsoft has extended its reaches, and their
self-avowed eagerness to pursue it even more.
MTC-00009520
From: Kevin Ramos-Glew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:31am
Subject: Microsoft
MICROSOFT is great
Leave them alone! It's survival of the fittest.
Bill Gates is helping to bring technology to inner-city
classrooms.
Find another cause.
Kevin
MTC-00009521
From: Christian Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been unable to locate information regarding the actual
penalties Microsoft is being levied. I have heard through the media,
that Microsoft will ``pay'' a penalty by donating software and
equipment to schools. Assuming this is the case, this would not
actually penalize Microsoft, but would allow them to create a market
for their products where one does not currently exist. This market
has been one of Apple's few competitive arenas with Microsoft. When
updates to ``donated'' products become available, Microsoft will
easily recoup any expenses incurred. Since their initial donation
cost will be significantly lower than the sale price of the
products, their actual penalty would be lower, allowing them to move
into a new market and make a profit in quick time, while appearing
to be either coming clean or even generous.
Again, assuming this is the case, I would encourage the DOJ to
consider a penalty that would actually penalize the company.
Microsoft could be required to provide equipment specified by the
school, without regard to the manufacturer. Alternately, Microsoft
could be required to provide free software and updates for all
products to schools in perpetuity. I don't want to see the DOJ
softening and letting Microsoft dictate the terms of their own
penalty.
I have been appalled at Microsoft's conduct, and I ask that they
be held accountable.
Sincerely,
Christian Klein
MTC-00009522
From: Delores Stafford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft
I respectfully ask that an end be put to the Clinton-era Anti-
trust law abuse on the Microsoft case.
Delores S. Stafford
MTC-00009523
From: David Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sirs: I am in favor of approval of the Microsoft settlement.
David Cooper
Mullica Hill, NJ
MTC-00009524
From: Jeffrey Houchins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
Greetings,
While admittedly I am no great fan of Microsoft, I believe a
free market economy depends on government staying out of the picture
as much as possible. As a consumer I believe Microsoft has the right
to bundle their products however they see fit. Let the market decide
these matters. This situation reminds me a bit of Wal-Mart going
into a rural community and putting all the Ma and Pa stores out of
business. There are both good and bad effects to this, but a free
market economy depends on freedom. Ultimately, me the consumer
decides where to spend my money.
Here is my tale of Microsoft bundling causing me to change from
Netscape Navigator to Windows Internet Explorer (IE). My first
computer had Navigator on it and I loved it and resisted switching
to IE simply because I was used to Netscape and had no reason to
change. That is until I bought a microsoft game that required
Windows to be the default browser if I wanted to play the game over
the internet.
Although I went kicking and screaming, I had no choice but to
switch over to Windows IE. Now that I am used to Windows IE I like
it just fine. Netscape never made any games, or contributed in any
other way to my internet usage. Microsoft has, and I believe that
gives them the right to flex their free market muscles from time to
time.
Netscape is a fine product, but if they plan on competing with
the big boys they will have to depend on innovation and imagination,
rather than turning to sniveling and whining to big brother to fight
their battles for them. Govenment interference should be kept to a
minimum, not only in this matter, but in all matters. Freedom
depends on it.
Jeffrey J Houchins
MPLS MN
MTC-00009525
From: Chris Reade
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov ','attorney.general(a)po...
Date: 1/8/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As a partner in a technology consulting firm I work with the
Microsoft products every day. And as a professional in the field I
must urge you do more in this settlement. I beleive that Microsoft
is a mean-spirited company whose only interest in the consumer's
welfare is how much money can be extracted from them.
Given that Microsoft made a mockery of their previous consent
decree and is likely to do the same with any conduct remedy I would
like to register my support for the following settlement: Force the
company to reveal the entire source-code for every release of the
operating system. This may sound like a weak penalty, but I think
you would find that it is the harsest penalty short of breaking the
company up.
Although the company makes a great deal of money from Office and
other products, Windows is the core that makes it all tick. It is my
belief (and I am in no sense alone here) that Microsoft has code
inside of Windows that favors the company's products and enables its
programmers to leverage the system to the company's benefit.
Further, I beleive that many other trust infractions would be
uncovered if the operating system was released open-source.
Additionally, it would truly make it possible for third parties to
write future software on parity with the company's own software.
[[Page 25164]]
Given that conduct remedies are not likely to succeed and that
breakup is not on the table, I beleive that licensing the source
code would have the greatest effect.
Sincerely,
Christopher Reade
Partner
Carrollton Technology Parters
New Orleans--New York--Washington DC
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
office: 504-897-3429 cell: 504-616-5589
www.ctpllc.com http://www.ctpllc.com/>
MTC-00009526
From: Frank Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:40am
Subject: J. RENO'S BLUNDER
Let's stop using taxpayers money on stupid deals like this, get
back within the constitution, and go after criminals, not businesses
trying to make a living for its employees, and a profit for its
shareholders. Drop this suit, and get on with good gov't business.
signed by antique frank--they don't make them this good anymore!
MTC-00009527
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't believe Microsoft has significantly hurt consumers and
support the settlement that the DOJ has reached to resolve the
litigation.
Sincerely
Eric Alsberg
1430 Voltz Road
Northbrook, Illinois
MTC-00009528
From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft
It is time to end the tyranny of the Clinton years! Get out of
the life of American business and taxpayers!! Why are you not
prosecuting true criminals like the Clintons and their accomplices
during their eight year crimes spree?
Jane Pehl
San Antonio, Texas
MTC-00009529
From: Glenda Bowen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support an end to the Microsoft Settlement.It is (in my
opinion) an extreme waste of our tax dollars. I firmly believe that
there is enough competition in the marketplace . People use
Microsoft because it is their choice.
Thank you,
Glenda Bowen
198 Fanning Bridge Road
Fletcher, NC 28732
[email protected]
MTC-00009530
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:43am
I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
MTC-00009531
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:46am
Subject: anti-trust
Gentelmen, Good morning from Dayton Ohio. I am writing with
regard to Bill Clintons anti trust laws he so valiantly defended on
good conservitive busniness like Bill Gate at Micro soft. The
Liberal Democrates seem to dislike any one or any corporate
successes they dont like any one or any bussinesses being successful
and getting ahead In life unless Its them. Leave the good companies
alone let them function under the free enterprize of our great
country, dont let the sociolist Democrates keep ruining our lives.
Thank you for you time. Merrill Clay a concerned American afraid of
what Liberal Democrates are doing. Only you people can stop them
MTC-00009532
From: Joan Dambra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:46am
Subject: MICROSOFT
DEAR GOVERNMENT.
PLEASE*********Just leave this wondeful company ALONE.
JOAN DAMBRA....
MTC-00009533
From: Michael Frawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
Please know that I am very dissapointed with the settlement the
US Government has reached with Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned,
the corporate structure (Bundled OS & Applications) that allowed
Microsoft to stifle and eliminate competition is still in place.
Where is Netscape these days anyway? Do you see anyone using that
browser anymore? Their attorneys must be laughing a slapping backs
over this one. If you had any MBA compare the remedies that are to
be imposed versus continued monopolistic behavior, I can assure you
that the latter is the better financial alternative.
We are talking about a company that currently sits on over $35
billion in cash. Compare that to your remedies. Any small company
that wishes to provide PC software applications that compete in
anyway with a Microsoft product had better think again. As a casual
observer with no ties to the high tech or software industry, I have
been alarmed at the predatory practices of Microsoft. It continues
to this day. Just try to use a competing application on your PC. You
should check out Windows XP and see the contempt they have for you.
As a capitalist I admire Microsoft's aggressive and competitive
tactics. As an entrepenuer, I am disheartened at the closed
opportunities that will lead to the absence of software innovation.
I hope the nine states that are standing firm can help you
remember the reasons why the suit was brought in the first place.
Regards,
Michael Frawley
MTC-00009534
From: Tony B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement worked out between Microsoft, the
Federal Government and the states aligned with the government in the
anti trust suit. The settlement is good for consumers and the
economy and should be approved as written. Moreover, the judge in
the case, should pressure the remaining states to accept the
settlement terms since the terms maintain competition in the
marketplace, encourage innovation, and provide consumers with
software choices at some of the most competitive (cheap) prices in
the history of our nation. Moreover, the handful of states that are
still pressing the anti-trust case are needlessly wasting taxpayer
dollars and are engaged in a politically motivated vendata that has
no benefit for consumers--their actions only benefit a handful of
disgruntled Microsoft competitors who have not been able to
effectively compete in the marketplace because of their poor
strategies and inferior, overpriced products.
Thank you for listening to a happy consumer!
Sincerely.
Tony Bray
MTC-00009535
From: Michael Ubaldi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:56am
Subject: A Lesson in Laissez-Faire
Having received notice that the DOJ is accepting public comments
regarding the Microsoft antitrust situation, I decided to pass along
an op-ed I recently ran in a local newsletter.
Impatient creatures we are, we?re best off remembering that
faith in time-honored institutions will straighten out even the most
undesirable situations. Take the free market and personal computing,
for instance. There are those of us who use Macintosh. There are
those of us who use PC's with a Microsoft Windows operating system
(OS). And then there are those of us who use Windows and are not
satisfied.
Few PC-based alternatives exist, however, as Microsoft controls
over 90% of the PC OS market. The major obstacle preventing a
serious challenger to Windows is compatibility. Here's the tidy
little paradox: nearly all applications for PC's are coded for
Windows; users are unwilling to sacrifice their tools for another OS
and decide to stay with Windows; vendors, unable to waste precious
capital, cannot design for an OS that no one will use; alternate
OS's are left with no programs with which to compete. So nearly all
applications (and PC users) stick with Windows. The Clinton Justice
Department saw in this an antitrust violation and resolved to gouge
a rent in Microsoft for ?competition? to enter. Up went the circus
[[Page 25165]]
tents, in paraded the subpoenas and the biased rulings?thankfully,
the Bush administration put an end to this nonsense. Down went the
circus tents.
Last October, news media were alerted to a new PC operating
system called LindowsOS. Unlike any other alternative OS, it will
attempt to be compatible with all Windows programs. Appealing to
small businesses, it hopes to capitalize on Windows dissatisfaction.
A prototype will be marketed to the public by the second quarter of
2002 (http://www.lindows.com). As any other enterprise in a free
market, Microsoft is vulnerable to perceived negligence; LindowsOS
and other spoilers like it will either win PC users over with
superior services or else give Microsoft good reasons to reach out
to consumers. All this without Washington, D. C.?s meddling. It's
overdue vindication for those who know that the best way to solve a
simple market problem is to leave the darn thing alone.
(c) Copyright Michael Ubaldi, All Rights Reserved.
Michael Ubaldi
MTC-00009536
From: David Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Suit
Dear overpaid Nazi bureaucrats:
Time to lay off Microsoft and go after the real criminals:
Hillary, Bill and all of their theiving, traitorous ilk that started
this unnecessary lawsuit in the first place. While you're at it, it
is time to scrap the ``P.A.T.R.I.O.T.'' assault on our civil rights.
Your disregard of the Bill of Rights is far more of a threat to
America than all the terrorists in the world. You can also tell
Attorney General Ashcroft I'm sorry I ever supported him. It's a
pity his Senate opponent died and he survived.
A most dissatisfied customer,
David Graham
1625 Walnut Ave.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
MTC-00009537
From: Mark Leary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:58am
Subject: MS settlement
Please settle this matter, further litigation is just a waste of
taxpayers money and besides is this not what we as Americans is all
about FREEDOM to innovate.
Leave Microsoft alone! They have done so much good for the
industry.
Mark J. Leary
MTC-00009538
From: Joyce Nymeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Microsoft Settlement.
I want to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
Marlene Nymeyer
25508 South Klemme
Crete, Illinois 60417
[email protected]
MTC-00009539
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. The Microsoft trial squandered
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and was a serious
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. I as a consumer
have the right to choose what I want to buy. And I will choose
Micrsoft products every time. They are superior to their
competitors. These competitors should quite their belly aching about
Bill Gates and his products. They should get off their dead butts
and invent a better product if they want their share of the money.
That is the American way. Not crying to government to bring a
company down to their inferior level. Thank God that didn't happen
with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Dodge brothers and all the other
great entrepreneurs of America or we would be no better than the
third world countries.
Sincerely,
Denise Morningstar
1019 S Division St
Whitehall, MI 49461-1701
email [email protected]
MTC-00009540
From: Dorothy Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I want to register my support for the Microsoft settlement. I
believe it is in the best interest of me, the industry and the
American economy.
Thank you,
Dorothy Wagner
465 Beach 133rd St.
Belle Harbor, NY 11694
MTC-00009541
From: Arnold Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft
Gentlemen, can we please stop this anti-business, anti-
entrepreneurship, anti-anybody getting too far ahead of the masses
in this country? It seems to me that our country has been on the
slippery slope toward socialism for too long now. It's time to
reaffirm that ours is a country of opportunity for all those who are
willing to work to reap the benefits of our freedom. Let's stop
discouraging Americans to excell by punishing them by taking from
their hard-earned gains and redistributing to those with less
initiative and drive. Microsoft is an American company providing
thousands of good jobs and contributing greatly to our nation's
economy. Sure they are competitive. They continue to improve and
expand their product line and do it in a way that serves their
customers well and favors the wider use of their product line. Why
is this a no-no? Can't their competitors do the same? Who's holding
them back? Customers have a choice. Microsoft is not shutting others
out of the business. I am tired of the whining competitors who seek
the governments' help in their attempts to limit Microsoft's
marketing initiatives. If they can't win share from Microsoft on
their own, then don't we have the best company with the best
products and service out front?
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be in the land of
opportunity?
Arnold Davis
Louisville, TN 37777
MTC-00009542
From: Charles Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Case
Please end this trial and the wasteful spending of our tax
dollars. This company did nothing but follow the rules set up by our
government and it is being penalized for it. Get the government out
of the way of companies that make this country work. Bureaucrats and
the courts have no business in this case. Let the competitive nature
of this business be the determining facture whether they succeed or
fail.
Sincerely,
Charles Wood
2886 Ravenwood Drive
Snellville, GA 30078
770-972-2048
[email protected]
MTC-00009543
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
As a computer user and lover of technology since the early
eighties, I feel compelled to weigh in regarding the recent
`settlement' between Microsoft and the DOJ.
I've used computers since the firs Xerox Star, Apple Lisa, and
DOS based PC's (before Windows). I also worked for New England
Telephone/NYNEX/Bell Altantic/Verizon until July of this year in our
Technology Center in Framingham, MA. This allowed me to see almost
every kind of consumer computer available. I was and I am an avid
reader of technology magazines and websites. I can distinctly
remember in the early nineties, reading about Microsoft's tactics in
establishing their monopoly. I wondered even then, how they were
getting away with `borrowing' Apple's look and feel and making
exclusionary contracts with OEM's. Through the years, as I read
about how they sabotaged DR-DOS, lied to customers about the ability
of their software, produced false evidence in their trials, etc. I
began to actually hate Microsoft and its executive board.
Since I was in charge of the Macintosh LAN at work, I was able
to see firsthand how the Macs were never in need of consistent
software patches or prone to the multitude ofproblems my PC
counterpart encountered. It once took 3 technicians and four days of
telephone support from Microsoft to get one PC to print properly. I
just couldn't believe how any company got anything done using PC
computers!!
Because of MS' thumbing of their nose at our free market economy
and antitrust laws, we have become a country of billions of
[[Page 25166]]
dollars of lost production due to their software which is so
unsecure and virus supporting that even the F.B.I. has to
investigate it. This is ludicrous when one realizes that there are
other options. Unfortunately, even after Windows XP was shown to be
the most unsecure OS ever built, MS' stock went up. Why? Because
they are such an entrenched monopoly that no company can afford to
even think of using an alternative.
MS has so much money they were able to back two bidders in the
auction for AT&T's cable business. No company should have that kind
of power. I beg of you to stop Microsoft. They should have been
broken up into three pieces; one that makes the OS, one that makes
the applications like Office, and a browser company. The
applications company would have definitely kept making Office for
the Macintosh and would've loved to make a version for LINUX.
(today, we have the AG's trying to force Microsoft to do what any
other competitive company would normally do).
The browser company would have to compete with Netscape for
business. The OS company would be forced to build better quality in
their OS or else the app developers would build their apps for the
most stable platform, which is UNIX based platforms like Mac and
LINUX. Read the message forums at ZDnet.com. Even Wintel users are
wary of Microsoft's power and this whole PASSPORT, HAILSTORM, .NET
initiative that will let Microsoft put their tentacles into every
single aspect of our daily lives.
You have the power to literally change and save the world of
computing. I beg of you, please dish out the punishment a convicted,
predatory, monopolist deserves. Break them up and let other, truly
innovative companies rise to the top. You will be doing a great
service to people like me who for ten years has seen the world of
computing, which I love, languish and be held captive to the beast
from Redmond.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Frank D'Angeli
57 Pinkert Street
Medford, MA 02155
781 396-5815
[email protected]
MTC-00009544
From: Gerry De Cave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:37am
Subject: Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse
Please stop squandering taxpayer's money in your pursuit of
Microsoft. Competition means creating better goods and offering
superior services to the consumer. The government should not be
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations. With the
reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepeneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products.
Disgustedly,
Gerry De Cave
MTC-00009545
From: Breton, Mark
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 10:47am
Subject: I would like to see the case against Microsoft dropped,
and for someone to I would like to see the case against Microsoft
dropped, and for someone to put a stop to all the money being wasted
in that proceeding.
Mark Breton
204 Hillcrest dr
Gallatin TN 37066
MTC-00009546
From: Pearson, Conrad
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As both a consumer and an IT Professional I have been against
the antitrust action against Microsoft from the beginning. In the
years that I have been using Microsoft operating systems, starting
with MS-DOS 1.1, I have seen the cost of the software come down
while the functionality has been greatly enhanced. There is another
important consideration as well: standardization. Had I chosen to
write this using MS-Word and send it to you as an attachment there
is an 86% chance that you would be able to merely open it and read
it. This was not the case 10 years ago, and it is because of
Microsoft's clout in the industry that this wonderful
standardization has taken place.
As a consumer, and as an IT Professional, I have alternative
choices in the operating system and application software that I use
and/or deploy and I have, in some cases, chosen the alternatives.
For the most part, the Microsoft solutions are the best value. The
antitrust action against Microsoft is not, in my opinion, in the
interest of the consumer, is not in the interest of business in
general, and is not in the interest of the computer industry.
Perhaps from a standpoint of technical merit Microsoft is guilty,
but if you consider the original purpose of existing antitrust laws
I do not believe in Microsoft's guilt.
I believe that the role of the DOJ should be to insure that
competition remains, but in doing so Microsoft should remain intact
and it's history of innovation should not be constrained in any
manner.
Conrad Pearson
Manager, Information Systems
Excellon Automation
phone: +1-310-534-6436
fax: +1-310-534-6777
MTC-00009547
From: Debbie Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
The only thing accomplished by the lawsuit brought against
Microsoft, is the hurting of the tech industry. The only reason 9
states are continuing the lawsuit is because the 9 states are in
financial trouble, and I look at the lawsuits as blackmail. Please
stop this. Noone is bringing these lawsuits in my name or to help
me. All it has done is make me sure that I will NEVER buy anything
from the companies that helped bring the lawsuits.
Debbie Davis
Dixon, CA
MTC-00009548
From: Ronald Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone and let the free market prevail.
Mr. and Mrs. R. W. Stone
N12356 Copenhaver Avenue
Stanley, Wisconsin 54768
MTC-00009549
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:58am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think that the Microsoft settlement is fair and just,
MTC-00009550
From: Gerald Rosenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:59am
Subject: USAGRosenberg--Gerald--1035--0103
Gerald Rosenberg
3530 Mystic Pointe Drive, # 2115
Aventura, FL 33180-4541
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you to voice my opinion in regards to the Microsoft
settlement issue. I support the settlement that was reached on
November 6th. I feel that this settlement is fair and reasonable,
and I am relieved that this issue is resolved.
Due to this settlement, Microsoft has pledged to share more
information with other information tech companies, Microsoft will
follow procedures to make it easier to install non-Microsoft
software and will disclose information about software codes in order
to do this, and a Technical Committee (TC) will enforce the
provisions at Microsoft's expense.
This settlement will make it easier to compete with Microsoft. I
have been a user of Windows since the inception. From a personal
standpoint, I want to say that no supplier of software to the
computer gives better support to their customers. If you read the on
line responses from users around the country you would see that the
vast majority of negative comment about Microsoft only comes from
their competition. Any one that offers a better program will capture
the market. Let me enjoy my computer in peace and let Microsoft be
there for me and others.
Sincerely,
Gerald Rosenberg
MTC-00009551
From: Jim Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We support the expeditious settlement of the Microsoft case. It
is time to STOP the Clinton ERA anti-trust process that stifles fair
competition.
James and Christina Horn
[email protected]
MTC-00009552
From: Ted Burgess
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25167]]
Date: 1/8/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think it is time to end this Clinton era bashing. Lets stop
this effort to hurt successful business enterprises.
Ted Burgess
MTC-00009554
From: Rose Marie Lavelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:07am
Subject: for all the people, not the few
Let us move on with the things of today and not the pass, end it
now!
ROBERT M.LAVELLE
122 WHISPERING PINE DR.
PALM COAST FL. 32164
MTC-00009555
From: Mary Smith
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft settlement...
I just wanted to ask for a speedy resolution to this settlement.
I think that the agreeable compromise that Microsoft is willing to
uphold and embraced by 9 states needs to be put through.
I believe in free enterprise, I am discouraged that those who
are less innovative are able to take from those freely who are
innovative and wise in business...
Get big government out of free enterprise.... Free enterprise
works... We the people love Microsoft (#1 software) in the world...
why??? Because of Microsoft's strong arm tactics? NO, but because
it's user friendly, excellent products, what the world is using,
excellent technical support and excellent interface capabilities....
It's too bad that we live in a nation where those who don't want to
work so hard and aren't as visionary are able to whine and complain
and hinder the work of those really great inventors who do work hard
and come up with great ideas, great products, great results. It's
time to tell the whiners to get a life... If they can't cut the
mustard, get out of the kitchen... They and our Government are
directly responsible for the downturn that the economy has seen in
the technology industry.... It really makes one want to jump right
in and invent something wonderful when those who are mediocre can
jump in and tear down the best that there is... Shame on you!
MTC-00009556
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am an electrical and computer systems engineer who would like
to comment on the ruling against Microsoft. I believe it is in the
best interest of the consumer and the computer industry if Microsoft
be prohibited from retaliating against an OEM if that OEM provides
software on their machine which competes against Microsoft, or if
the OEM provides a dual boot system.
I should like to mention a specific case as an example. The
BeOS, created by former Apple employees among others, represents a
substantial leap in OS technology, but has been unsuccessful in the
commercial market, largely due to the lack of machines offered with
BeOS as a native OS or dual boot alternative. BeOS is currently used
in computers which are not personal computers, but commercial
systems which allow editing of audio and video, and in many cases is
the choice of professionals for multimedia work, choosing to write
their own software for BeOS rather than use existing software and
Microsoft Windows. BeOS has been bought by Palm, Inc. and dissolved,
due to it's lack of market success, which I feel is directly related
to the policies of Microsoft which kept BeOS from being offered side
by side with Windows on PC's.
Please take into consideration the effect of Microsoft on BeOS
in your decision. Thank you for your thoughtful diligence in this
case.
Russell Ivey
MTC-00009557
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:13am
Subject: Settlement
Quit the politics and let all of us move on with life, liberty
and a bit of business sense.
MTC-00009558
From: noel harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1l:17am
Please leave Microsoft alone and go after real criminals, the
worst of which are elected officials and their underlings.
Noel Harris
MTC-00009559
From: Scald Master
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
1) MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either
in form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with
Windows users.
2) The Win32 API needs to be available so that BeWine can be
successfully ported not only to BeOS but other OS too.
3) The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
4) The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
``God is real, unless declared integer.''
Eu apoio a candidatura de Cthulhu a presidencia! Junte-se a
campanha! http://www.cthulhu.org Parkinson's Fourth Law:
The number of people in any working group tends to increase
regardless of the amount of work to be done.
MTC-00009560
From: Gen LaGreca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the anti-trust laws are non-objective and
unconstitutional. Only coercion can cause a monopoly to form, which
means only firms that are run and/or supported by the government can
forcibly restrict competition from entering a field and be
monopolies (e.g., the US Postal Service, the medallion cabs in New
York City). We would not even have a computer industry if it weren't
for Microsoft. The government has no means to give us a computer
industry, but it thinks it has the power to suppress firms in it at
will. I say laissez-faire, leave it alone! Leave Microsoft alone and
stop persecuting big business.
Businessmen have a right to life, liberty and property, too,
without being regulated out of existence by ``Big Brother.''
Genevieve LaGreca
405 North Wabash Ave., # 714
Chicago, IL 60611
MTC-00009561
From: Dickie Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Suit
Dear Sir or Madam:
Lets end this Clinton era fandangle and let Microsoft alone.
Dickie Horn
Bartlesville, Ok
MTC-00009562
From: Keith Fette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft
2716 Bentley Court
Cincinnati, Ohio 45244
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to you today to ask for your support in the effort
to bring the Microsoft antitrust case to an end. The best way you
can do this is to show firm backing of the settlement you have
reached with the Microsoft Corporation.
Certain anti-Microsoft special interests may try to derail this
settlement or have it withdrawn. That is why this settlement needs
your firm backing. These interests would have the public falsely
believe that this settlement is too soft on Microsoft but this is
not the case. This settlement discloses Microsoft's internal
interfaces, a major concession and something that has never been
done by a software firm before. This will allow competing firms to
create better software to compete with Microsoft. This is just one
of the major changes that Microsoft has made to make the IT industry
more competitive. Any further continuation of this case will just be
a waste of time and resources. A settlement is in the best interests
of both parties and the American people.
Microsoft has done immeasurable good for the United States and
does not deserve to be harassed in this manner, especially in light
of the current depressed state of the
[[Page 25168]]
economy. The success of the economy is dependent upon the success of
companies such as Microsoft who directly or indirectly employee
countless Americans with very good jobs throughout every state of
the union.
Sincerely,
Keith Fette
MTC-00009563
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the settlement reached by the Department of Justice
and Microsoft several months ago. This decision was reached after a
long, hard three year court battle. The settlement imposed a broad
series of restrictions and obligations on Microsoft, even extending
to products and technologies that were not at issue in the lawsuit.
Further, a ``Technical Committee'' has been established whereby any
third party will be free to lodge a complaint. I think Microsoft has
more than paid for its success. Bill Gates was simply better,
quicker, faster to put his product on the market, incorporating his
software into computer technology. Such success breeds jealousy.
However, it is over and done. It is time to move on. We need now to
concentrate on our economy and one way to do this is to quit
rehashing decisions that were made several months ago. Microsoft has
contributed mightily to this country's economy, and the world's, and
I think Bill Gates should now be allowed to go forward with his
business and not be hampered by those who are not as good as Mr.
Gates. I might add that Bill gates has done more for the TYPEWRITER
than anyone age 40 or over could ever in their wildest dreams have
imagined. I was a Business Education teacher for 20 years, and
taught typing, including erasures, corrections, set-up, tabulation,
letter preparation, filing, financial statements, and all of those
things made so simple by our Bill Gates. Yes, life is more beautiful
because of Bill, and I support the settlement. Thank You.
Sincerely
Donald Erskine
MTC-00009564
From: Nick Sayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:32am
Subject: Reply comments to proposed settlement
Nicholas W. Sayer
2351 Sutter Ave #2
Santa Clara, CA 95050-6640
[email protected]
This is my response to the proposed settlement of US v.
Microsoft as called for under the Tunney Act.
The proposed settlement is at the least inadequate and at most
actually rewards Microsoft and punishes its competitors for its past
behavior. It must not be forgotten that Microsoft has been found
guilty of anticompetitive behavior. Any settlement must take into
account what has been (it can now be said) proven in a court of law.
If one wanted to be charitable and keep the major components of the
settlement, one would have to demand that the section that talks
about Microsoft being required to open its protocol specifications
to certain well-heeled competitors be recrafted to require opening
those specifications to everyone. The settlement ratifies
Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop and seeks to insure a level
playing field elsewhere. The position of open-source operating
systems and software would be damaged beyond any possible repair if
they were not allowed to participate as equal partners sharing in
the same information as commercial entities. Disclosure of such
information would not in any way harm Microsoft (we're not talking
about Microsoft's unpublished source code. We're merely talking
about specification documentation), and would certainly benefit
consumers indirectly by giving them more choices for their backend
servers, which would spur Microsoft to insure that their
implementations were competitive both in price and quality. But the
real pity is that all of the above presumes, as the settlement
already does, that Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop is
sacrosanct. It should not be. A much better settlement would address
the root of the problem--the OEM agreements between Microsoft and
major PC manufacturers, for it is the fact that OEMs are actually
prevented by Microsoft from providing alternative platforms to
consumers that makes alternative platforms unattractive. Such
unattractiveness is the fount from which pour like a flood all
advantages Microsoft has in the desktop marketplace. The following
steps are necessary to address this:
1. OEMs should be required to list the cost of any and all
Microsoft software supplied preinstalled on the computer at
purchase-time as a separate line item. Customers should be allowed
to purchase computers either without any such software at all
(should they wish to purchase or otherwise obtain it elsewhere) or
by choosing from alternatives offered by the OEMs. Microsoft argues
that this would merely encourage piracy of their products. Such an
argument completely ignores any possibility that suitable software
could be found elsewhere (which clearly is the case despite
Microsoft's monopoly). The status quo allows Microsoft to
effectively levy a tax on all pre-built computer systems regardless
of whether the user intends to actually use the supplied Microsoft
software or not. Users who wish to run an alternative operating
system are thus required to pay for two of them, one of which they
will never use.
2. OEMs should be allowed to offer machines configured with
multiple operating systems if they (and the customers) choose.
Currently OEMs are barred from doing so by Microsoft. It is possible
(indeed, it is a frequent occurrence) for one computer to allow the
user to select at boot time from a number of alternative operating
systems, giving the user the choice to select the one desired for
the task at hand. Requiring the user to repartition the hard disk
(throwing away the preinstalled software provided by the OEM at
purchase time) in order to make room for alternative operating
systems is a significant hurdle that solidifies Microsoft's death-
grip on the desktop marketplace. If the settlement did nothing more
than these two things, I believe it would be sufficient to reignite
competition in the desktop operating system marketplace. Microsoft
would not be punished beyond merely forcing them to be on a level
playing field with everyone else. Isn't that the outcome that
everyone wants?
Signed,
Nicholas W. Sayer
MTC-00009565
From: Holly Kirchofer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a software engineer and I remember well what it was like
before Microsoft came along. Computers were very expensive and very
difficult to use. Every piece of software required it's own set of
cryptic commands, none of it worked very well together, and it was
very expensive. Microsoft standardized the PC and made it practical
and affordable to own a PC. Some of the things that the Microsoft
competitors are whining about are the very innovations that I
appreciated from Microsoft. It is so nice to have everything
integrated into the operating system; it makes life easier. From a
consumer's perspective, Microsoft has had a very positive impact on
this industry and has done more to benefit the consumer than all of
the other companies put together. It's time to settle this case and
let Microsoft once again focus on what they do best. I do use
software from other companies beside Microsoft; I have this choice.
However, if we want to talk about monopolies, let's talk about
Bellsouth. I do not have a choice in the phone line coming into my
house and it is a constant source of frustration when using the
computer. Bellsouth does not provide hardware capable of supporting
DSL or even a 56K modem in my neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Holly Kirchofer
[email protected]
3105 N. Indian River Dr.
Cocoa, Fl. 32922
MTC-00009566
From: Nancy J. Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
RE: Pending Microsoft Settlement
I would like to give you a few comments on why I believe this
case needs to be settled as quickly as possible.
1. In the current economic situation, we, the Country, do not
need the uncertainty that this case is causing.
2. Many of the claims that have been made are not relative in
today's environment. For example, I have the option to use whatever
software I choose to on my computer. I am not bound by what is
installed when I purchased it (example--I much prefer
[[Page 25169]]
Netscape to Internet Explorer.) (Another demonstration of being able
to choose although not related to Microsoft--even though AOL comes
loaded on my computer, I have the free choice not to use it).
3. Finally, rather than punish Microsoft, we should be thanking
them for bringing us into the computer world. Prior to Microsoft,
computer software could not talk to each, computers were not
compatible with one another, and the list goes on and on. I remember
very well when computers were as foreign to the average person as
speaking Latin. Today even Grandma and Grandpa are using computers
to stay in touch with family. And don't you believe for a second
that a lot of this progress wasn't directly due to the work Micros
did.
Nancy J Tate
MTC-00009567
From: Ken D'Ambrosio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:36am
Subject: Remedies for Microsoft antitrust suit.
Being as it currently appears that no settlement will occur, I
felt it in my, and my industry's, best interests to express my
feelings with regards to Microsoft, their actions, and some
potential remedies. First and foremost, let me explain that I have
been a system administrator for close to 20 years, and have had in-
depth experience with most every operating system that Microsoft has
released, since and including DOS 2.0 and Windows 1.0. In all that
time, I have seen relatively little of the much-vaunted
``innovation'' that Microsoft claims. For example, it was only when
Digital Research's DR-DOS had clearly surpassed DOS 3.x's
capabilities (partition size, full-screen editor, etc.) that
Microsoft enhanced their own version of DOS (4.01 and 5.0 addressed
the two above issues, respectively). It was also during the beta
phase of Windows 3.1, however, that they caused DR-DOS' own
operating system to crash when attempting to run Windows (1).
While I certainly can't criticize a company for attempting to
make money, I can when I believe they are hurting the consumers they
purport to help. I have seen Microsoft attempt this, time and again,
when Microsoft intentionally obfuscates file formats(2),
communications protocols, and API interactions, not to mention the
explicit desire to sabotage competition with said practices(3).
Finally, some of their latest legal shenanigans include a case
against Lindows (www.lindows.com), a Linux/Windows hybrid. It
contends that Lindows infringes on Microsoft's trademark of
``Windows''(4). I, personally, find it abhorrent that Windows, a
descriptive name if ever I heard one, was able to be trademarked in
the first place, and certainly find nothing wrong with combining the
first half of the word ``Linux'' with the second half of the word
``Windows'': I find it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would
become confused in any way about this--certainly no moreso than
Windows, itself, would become confused with the previously
trademarked windowing system for Unix, X Windows(5). So, given a
history of consistent, persistent abuses--many more of which I have
failed to discuss (eg. Stac Software vs. Microsoft), but would
willingly do so upon request--I humbly submit that only pervasive,
unarguable remedies will cause Microsoft to alter its behavior.
--In order for alternative operating systems (eg., Linux, or the
now defunct BeOS) to be viable from a price perspective, new
computer purchases should have the operating system cost be
seperated out from the cost of the system as a whole. That way, the
consumer is aware of what he is paying for, and what alternatives
would truly cost, instead of merely purchasing a bundled system, and
having no idea how much money is being spent on software.
--Microsoft uses much that is proprietary in their system, which
can then, in turn, lock out competitors from creating competing
programs. (The fact that Microsoft has the best-selling operating
system, an embedded web browser, and the best-selling office
software suite, gives them an almost airtight stranglehold on what
is essentially a self-contained system.) Therefore, I recommend that
all proprietary formats, protocols, etc., be opened: the API,
itself, file formats for all (non-licensed) applications,
communications protocols, and anything else that would hinder
competitors from being on a level playing field when writing
applications for the Windows platform. Being that I am (obviously) a
lay person, please forgive my relative ignorance of pertinent law
and/or guidelines for submission, but I felt it important that I
take the time to comment, and give some background.
Thank you for your time,
Ken D'Ambrosio
Sr. System Administrator,
Xanoptix, Inc. 1) See Caldera vs. Microsoft (http://
www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/lineo1--10--00.html), which was settled out
of court, but which was documented quite well by the respected
industry journal ``Dr. Dobbs Magazine'', as well as ``Red Herring''
(http://www.tbtf.com/archive/0159.html#s02). 2) http://kt.zork.net/
kernel-traffic/kt20001225--99.html#5, look for paragraph starting
``Elsewhere, Jeff V. M. added...'' 3) http://winnetou.lcd.lu/
halloween1.html#--Toc427495714 4) http://slashdot.org/
article.pl'sid=01/12/20/237217&mode=thread 5) http://www.x.org/
terms.htm, bottom of page.
MTC-00009568
From: Barker, Philip
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft and litigation
As a computer reseller in metropolitan Detroit, the actions
taken by your government organization against Microsoft has had
profound changes in the perception of the computer industry with our
commercial customers. Prior to the economic declines in August 2000,
many companies held off on implementing technology in the workplace
that would improve productivity based on the actions of Justice
Department actions against Microsoft. These Justice Department
actions created an aura of uncertainty in the minds of our
commercial customers and postponed any decision on technology
implementations--thus slowing everything down. You really put a
stick in the spokes of progress.
I believe these Justice Department actions have jammed up the
American economy, jobs and economic livelihood of millions of people
and tens of thousands of viable technology companies.
We have been reselling PC computer products since the early
1980's and I can tell you that the wild west frontier of the early
1980 in selling computer products was truly a `snake oil'
environment. Rife with deceptive advertising, `vaporware' products,
products that did not work as advertised, multiple bugs and the list
of horrors goes on.
What Microsoft did in the 1980's was develop a `standardized'
platform whereby programmers and computer component manufacturer
companies could develop and market products with a relative
confidence that the products would work.
Upon this standardized platform, the market for PC computer
technology was born along with millions of jobs and taxpaying
companies--all working together to move the technology of America
forward--increase our standards of living and our place on earth. My
firm belief is that the actions of the Justice Department will deal
a blow to the concept of `standardized' platforms--a return the wild
west days of `snake oil' computer solutions full of bugs and a
return to vaporware and a disjointed technology industry--a
scrambled mess. I recommend the following:
(1) Make your decision soon so America can return to forward
momentum
(2) Take into account that Microsoft has developed a Technology
industry in America that has created millions of jobs and taxpaying
companies
(3) A return to the anarchy and awkward technology business
practices of the early 1980's benefits no-one and will drain
American productivity
(4) Be fair to the American public and the technology companies
that employ them
Sincerely,
Philip T. Barker
Vice President
Web Site: http://www.electrosonics.net/>
E-mail: [email protected]
Electrosonics, Inc.
17150 15 Mile Road
Fraser, Michigan 48026-3442
Telephone Number: (586) 415-5555
Fax Number: (586) 415-0770
Cell Phone: (586) 764--4718
Business Hours: 8:15am-5pm EST--Monday--Friday
MTC-00009569
From: Bar-Jac Bar-Jac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
This trial has cost taxpayers dollars that could have been more
wisely spent on defense of our country.
Competition has made our country the Great Country that it is
today and our government should take a ``hands off'' policy where
business is concerned.
I strongly support the microsoft settlement. Please settle this
matter and let's start over,
[[Page 25170]]
encouraging business growth and entrepreneurism. Thank you for
listening to my opinion.
Sincerely,
Barbara Strickland
MTC-00009570
From: Irving Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
``1200 Shoreview Drive Lima Ohio 45805''
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am certainly among the group of people who approve of the
Microsoft antitrust case settlement. I believe that the federal
government has had more than enough input into this matter and it's
time to let Microsoft and the rest of the industry re-focus on
business as usual.
The proposed settlement amply satisfies the concerns of
Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft will now share information about
the internal workings of Windows with its competitors, allowing them
to more easily install their own software on Windows-based systems.
Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against vendors that use
or sell non-Microsoft products. All of these terms will be enforced
by a technical review committee, created by the settlement, to
ensure that Microsoft adheres to the terms of its agreement with the
Department of Justice. Further sanctions and restrictions would be
unnecessary and counterproductive.
This antitrust case has dragged on for far too long, and the
settlement is the best available option to bring it to a swift end.
I fully support the settlement, and wish to go on record as doing
so.
Sincerely,
Irving Kaufman
MTC-00009571
From: Jerry (038) Jodene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:00pm
End the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
MTC-00009572
From: Marie Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:03pm
Subject: Lawsuit
It's time to let this irresponsible suit go. I believe this suit
was the cause of the fall of the stock market and the recession.
Clinton believed in punishing people for their achievements, but I
don't. Please drop this lawsuit.
Marie Miller
Cedar City, UT
MTC-00009573
From: Drewski
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@ po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/8/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft and Anti-Trust
Without real punishment, Microsoft will never change its ways.
You only have to look to Windows XP to see this. This lawsuit never
should have been about integrating ONE product into another, but the
entire PRACTICE of integration. MS needs to be broken up into three
companies--OS, User Applications, Server Applications. Sooner is
better than later.
--Drew
MTC-00009574
From: charles schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
I support the agreement as fair and in the best interests of
America.
Charles Schneider
MTC-00009575
From: Carole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I think the Microsoft settlement is good for consumers like me
and also that it is in the best interest of the American economy and
the computer industry. Any further litigation will not serve the
public interest and will only deter from innovation in the industry.
I just wanted my voice to be heard on this matter.
Thank you
Carole Lynch Memphis TN
MTC-00009576
From: Steve Sawyer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
Greetings,
I have been involved in the IT industry since 1981. I watched
Microsoft, Apple and others work their way up the corporate ladder
with innovative ideas and hard work. They deserve much of the fruits
of their labor.
However, in Microsoft's case, they have been doing much more
harm than good to the consumer over the past several years. As a
graduate of the University of Oregon School of Business
Administration, I have watched with fascination the methods with
which Microsoft has eliminated competition and coerced vendors into
doing business Microsoft's way. All of this while their own products
continue to slide, in terms of quality and technical advancement.
The result is a two-edged sword. They spend time and resources
wiping out competitive ideas leaving little reason or incentive to
improve their own. Then the
Government and the courts comes along and `endorses' this
approach by mandating toothless laws with little or no enforcement.
Microsoft is trying to do this with Linux as well as others.
Microsoft is a great company. Bill Gates and crew should be
applauded for what they have done for technology. However, Microsoft
has become a textbook example of why we have rules governing
monopolistic practices in this country. When Billy Graham gets
caught speeding he receives a ticket for speeding and he pays the
fine. Microsoft got caught and it is time to pay the fine.
Do America and Microsoft a favor and put a stop to the dark side
of Microsoft.
Thank you...
Steve
Steve Sawyer
Director of Internet Development
Market America, Inc.
[email protected]
MTC-00009577
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
It is my humble opinion that this is a fair settlement and
should go forward. I have never had a problem with Microsoft and
believe they have moved us along in the computer age and they have
done so with hard work and debticsation.
Sincerely yours,
Eric T Baggett
MTC-00009578
From: Burkhard Daniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case
I do not think it's in the best interest of the public to settle
the case out of court.
From my point of view, the suggestion made by Microsoft to set
up a funds that sponsors schools in the purchase of software is a
``back-door'' approach.
Microsoft has nothing to lose from that but a lot to gain. Most
schools benefiting from such a funds would (out of gratitude, or
simply because Microsoft software is so widespread) purchase
Microsoft software. Schools that had no software before now have
Microsoft software, which only helps intensify Microsoft' almost-
monpoly on software to a new (and promising) market.
It also seems that the change in the political climate (i.e. the
election of President Bush) has had some impact on the devotion put
behind the case by the DoJ, i.e. that was the one thing that made an
out-of-court settlement an option at all (or so it seems to me).
Once started, I think political considerations should not be allowed
to influence judicial decisions, and that's another reason why I
think the case should be tried in court to its conclusion.
Burkhard Dnaie.
Burkhard Daniel * [email protected] * http://www.burkhard.net
Our lives are poems sung against the wind, with nothing but our
voices to make a difference.
MTC-00009579
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:35pm
Subject: Dear Sirs:
I want to let you know that I support the
Dear Sirs: I want to let you know that I support the Microsoft
settlement as it is.
Robert Quackenbos
MTC-00009580
From: Bert Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
[[Page 25171]]
I am a consumer using MS products, and I don't feel the case
against MS is for my protection.
I feel the action is because MS is successful and has a lot of
money, that companies that were less successful, could benefit
through the legal system. Also different States including Florida
want some of MS's money. A form of legal extortion.
As in the tobacco suits, the States got a lot of money,and the
tobacco companies raised their prices. This is supposed to protect
the end user the same way it will when MS has to raise their prices
to pay for this litigation.
Times have changed, since the original suit was filed. Most of
the companies that claimed they had been hurt, no longer exist They
have been bought-out or merged with other enities and are doing
quite well. AOL is a good example.
Enough is enough, stop any further litigation, that only
benefits the legal profession and does nothing for the economy or
the consumer.
Respectfully submitted,
Bert J Wood
P.O. Box 15658
Clearwater FL 33766
[email protected]
MTC-00009581
From: howard stein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to inform you of my opinion that the action of the United
States Government against Microsoft is unfair and destructive.
Microsoft is not anticompetitive; it is the US Government that is
anticompetitive.
We can live with Microsoft and live well; the question is
whether or not we can live with you.
MTC-00009582
From: Douglas R. White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
My comments on the settlement are simple. The Justice Department
should have never brought this suit to begin with. In my opinion the
antitrust laws were established in an era that could have never
envisioned dealing with companies in a dynamic technology market
under which Microsoft and many others flourished.
I think this action help precipitate the decline of all
technology companies.
Please allow this settlement to stand for the good of the
country's economy.
Douglas R. White
545 Watergate Ct
Roswell, GA 30076
[email protected]
MTC-00009583
From: Tom Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If you cannot open this document, I'll be happy to send it in
any format that you need.
Thanks
Tom Gordon
January 8, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
I have been following the Microsoft case for the last number of
years, and the proposed settlement disturbs me. Not in the matter
that it's to easy on Microsoft, but that it is way too harsh. I have
been sickened at the gross waste of money and court time in the
proceedings in this case.
I have developed software using Microsoft technology since the
early 80's. Their technologies have matured and improved over those
years not by strong arm tactics, but by the intelligent application
of technology by smart people. The current proposed settlement puts
a ball and chain on the operations of that company, which will
likely diminish its ability to improve and develop new technologies,
ultimately reducing or preventing new, innovative technologies from
reaching consumers.
1. Regarding Section III items D and E of the settlement
For one to even hint that Microsoft hides secret technologies
from competitors in order to make their applications more efficient
is merely competitive jealousy. Of course competitors are not going
to say nice things about their chief rival. When I was actively
developing software, Microsoft was more than helpful in showing how
to make it more efficient and effective. Their staff and support
people worked directly with me and my staff to help make our systems
better. They continue to openly and frequently train outside
developers at multi-day knowledge transfer events all over the
world. They reveal the low level intricacies of how their systems
function, and how to capitalize on them. Microsoft trains all comers
on how to write software to work with their systems! This is done in
order to help people write better, more innovative software. Who
ultimately defines middleware? Are the government and the courts now
in the business of software and operating systems design? Are we
going to allow the government to micro-manage the development of
products in our economy? This is not what capitalism is about Why
does Microsoft develop such good software? The answer is simple.
Their staff has been writing Windows applications for many years.
Experience counts when writing complex software. When Windows 3.0
was released, I asked my WordPerfect sales rep if they were going
upgrade their word processing system from DOS so it would work on
the new operating system (OS). They indicated they would wait to see
if the Windows 3.0 would work out, and that it would only take 6
months to convert their word processor to work on it. Several years
later, when the conversion was completed, their word processor was
slow, clumsy and a miserable failure (in my opinion). I tried it,
erased it, and went back to the old DOS version. When Microsoft came
out with Word for Windows, it worked well, and I left it on my
machine. As an experienced Windows developer, I knew WordPerfect' s
problem was in the architecture and design of the product. It was
impossible to efficiently change their product from DOS to Windows
without a significant architectural modification. Microsoft's
software engineers knew Windows, since they had been writing Windows
application code for years. WordPerfect's engineers had not, and
faced a steep learning curve.
It takes 2-3 years of writing Windows code to become truly
proficient. Tailoring applications to work with modern operating
systems is an extremely complex task. The problem is not in what
Microsoft tells other developers, it is in the level of experience
of their development staff. The concept that Microsoft should reveal
`secret' application interfaces to their operating systems (OS) to
help competitors write more efficient code is technically dangerous.
I shudder at the thought of any operating system or `middleware'
manufacturer having to reveal the internal systems calls to
developers. The result is that when the next version of the OS is
released, the internal call might have changed by the OS vendor in
order to implement new features, and any application code dependent
upon that function call would likely fail. Some will say that the
internal OS function calls should not be changed since it would be
detrimental to the applications using it, but that's a fallacy,
since ALL operating systems have internal function calls that may
need to change as the operating system matures and grows. Microsoft
has published, and continues to publish huge volumes of internal
technical documentation on how to write systems to interact with
their software. The books used to be small, but now can't even be
contained on one CDROM! Their systems also have `undocumented'
calls, many of which are documented in external publications by
other authors, but not condoned by Microsoft. These `undocumented'
calls are for internal operating system use, and can change from
version to version of their systems out of necessity. These
undocumented calls are used by developers at their own risk. Some
choose to use them, but others study how they work and figure ways
to leverage what they learned. For Microsoft to officially publish
undocumented calls is fraught with risk. Such a publication of the
`undocumented' interfaces ties the hands of Microsoft, making it
almost impossible to evolve their operating systems. They will not
be able to change them since competitors will be dependent upon them
for their systems. When the operating system cannot evolve,
technology cannot evolve, and the ultimate consumer loses.
Revelation of internal system calls also creates a severe
testing and stability problem of software platforms. If you cannot
depend on applications and `middleware' software (written using the
internal OS interfaces) to run from one version to the next of an
operating system, the testing burden on industry (those using the
software in a commercial environment) and consumers becomes huge.
Such testing is necessary to insure stable migration from one
version of a system to the next. Without it, corporate information
networks could fail, and security could be compromised. With an
increased testing burden, new products won't be
[[Page 25172]]
implemented rapidly (or at all), and industry as a whole suffers.
Developers will not write software to run on platforms that haven't
been implemented by their clients.
Many competitors of Microsoft would love to see the internal
system function calls documented, since it would ultimately stop the
evolution of Windows. Would this be in the best interest of the
consumer?
I am not convinced that the language of the agreement is
adequate to prevent some software developers from tying the hands of
Microsoft, preventing it from improving the operating system due to
some specific function call that needs to change. This would be an
unnecessary and onerous form of punishment--preventing any evolution
of the operating system.
2. Regarding Section III C
One of the amazing things about the Windows platform, from a
development perspective, is that you can depend on certain services
and, what appears to be called `middleware', being available for you
applications to run. If OEM's and others are allowed to remove
portions of Windows in order to customize it to their liking, this
will make development of software much more difficult, as one will
not be able to depend upon the consistency of the platform. Although
there is apparently some language in the agreement to help alleviate
this problem, from the development standpoint, the potential
instability is disconcerting. Applications will have to be written
to the lowest common denominator of technology, making them less
attractive to consumers, and less useful.
3. Oversight (Section IV B and C)
In the settlement, there is a section regarding oversight of
Microsoft's operations by a group of individuals (The `TC'), and a
Compliance Officer.
Isn't this almost the same thing that just about killed IBM?
Economies are no longer national, they are global. To use a group of
people to oversee the functions of Microsoft will stifle their
ability to develop new systems, ultimately limiting technologies to
the consumer. We are in a world economy. Many nations would love to
see the demise of Microsoft, so they could take over technical
leadership in software. If this is the case, it's not unforeseeable
that the United States will ultimately be importing billions of
dollars of software from other countries, instead of exporting it.
4. Other issues discussed by individuals (and States) objecting
to the settlement:
Monopoly Profits: I find it very difficult, if not impossible,
to find where, in any law, it's illegal to optimize profit. It has
been taught in business schools from coast to coast for ages. For
Microsoft to be admonished for making a profit digs at the heart of
capitalism, that is, if the United States still works on a
capitalistic economy. Microsoft `bet the company' on Windows in the
80's and early 90's, and now some say they should be prevented from
making a profit. How is this appropriate, fair or even legal? What
precedent does this set? If you are innovative, should you move to
another country that will let you make a profit? If you make a large
financial gamble, you cannot receive gain commensurate with the risk
involved?
Microsoft not only competed with other operating systems, but
with their own previous versions of Windows and `free' operating
systems software. If Windows was priced too high, people would not
adopt it. Customers chose to buy new versions due to a wealth of new
features. Restricting those features would kill the market for
operating systems.
Microsoft as an `illegal, abusive monopoly': I realize this has
been argued and `decided' by the courts (and the politicians and the
press). It's quite apparent that if define a market narrowly enough,
you can create a monopoly out of thin air. In a dynamic, well
defined market, there is absolutely no such thing as a monopoly. In
the case of the personal computer, if one company is making
`monopoly profits' (in the economic sense, price above the
equilibrium price) selling the devices, another company will figure
a way to do the same thing, with another type of device, better
start making `monopoly profits' of their own. This is the heart of
capitalism. All companies that make a profit make `monopoly
profits.' A competing product may not physically resemble the
original, but it meets the same consumer need. The personal computer
has just about evolved into a commodity product, and may be
relegated to the basement junk yard in 10 years. This occurs as new
technologies take over the tasks older technologies have been
handling. The market is too dynamic to define a small piece of the
pie, and declare it as a monopoly marketplace. The environment and
the market are constantly changing.
The only people who complain about a monopoly are the
competitors. If there are competitors, then where is the monopoly?
If the competitors have a better technology, then they will
ultimately win, even if a market dominant firm tries to prevent it.
This was appropriately demonstrated when Microsoft achieved a
significant market position in small computer operating systems over
the likes of IBM, DEC, Wang, Sun, Univac and others. The best and
most cost effective system won many of those battles.
Release Microsoft Office On Other Platforms: Some individuals
have proposed that to make a `level playing field', Microsoft should
publish their Office software for other operating systems. If this
were economically viable, wouldn't someone have already created
software that does this? Changing code to run on another operating
system is not in the slightest manner a simple task. It may be
impossible. It is very much like trying to attach wings to an
automobile and calling it an airplane. The fundamental structural
concepts between operating systems are usually significantly
different, and interchanging applications between them is not a
quick, or an easy task. When a feature cannot be implemented on
another operating system due to some architectural differences, how
do you resolve this?
Release a Stripped Down Version of Windows: Some have proposed
Microsoft develop a `stripped down' version of Windows that others
could enhance. Although interesting from a technical and academic
standpoint, this would potentially perpetuate multiple non-
compatible systems that could kill the applications software
industry. Back when the IBM PC was young, there 3 or 4 different
operating systems available (UCSD P-System, CPM-86, MSDOS/PCDOS and
a few others.) They were anything but compatible. Once the MSDOS/
PCDOS system became prevalent, the industry flourished. Before that,
developers had to pick their target operating system, and ignore the
others, as they worked differently. This severely hampered the
growth of the PC industry.
Releasing the Windows Source Code: Giving away what Microsoft
has spent many billions to develop would be tantamount to capital
punishment and confiscation. Competitors would love the confiscation
of others' private property, but the precedent in our economy would
be devastating. No company would ever again be safe from the
government taking private property without just compensation, plus
the government would be in the situation of picking winners. If
another company created something better, and started to obtain a
large market share, would the government be obligated to clip their
wings to favor the pre-determined winner?
Requiring Microsoft to include competitor's products in Windows:
Who would decide what products to be included in Windows? Would the
government now be involved with Operating System design? Wouldn't
this open a Pandora's Box where everybody would want their software
included on the Windows Disk (ultimately, becoming multiple disks)?
If the other companies put their software on the Windows disks, who
would be responsible for testing and support? Shouldn't Microsoft be
compensated for including and distributing the wares of others? What
happens when the additional code doesn't pass the necessary tests to
be included? Microsoft has 2 testers for every 1 developer in the
operating systems group, and that still doesn't produce code that is
100% bug free. Will other companies insure their code is tested to
that level? Adding more pieces to the equation increases the testing
load exponentially. Insure Microsoft continues to fully support
`industry standards': Who defines the `industry standards?' Again,
are the government and the courts going to become involved with
operating system design? Are we to have `official' operating system
standards and a government agency that makes certain standards
official? What does that do to competition and consumer choice?
Final Comments: Yes, there were likely some individuals at
Microsoft that may have become over-zealous in their marketing
areas. That's part of the drive for success within individual
product groups. The technology industry is a fierce competitive
environment; one has to fight for market share and consumer dollars.
To severely punish the entire company for some minor infractions, to
ultimately reduce future consumer choice and to confiscate the
property of shareholders is tantamount to sentencing a parking
offender to capital punishment. Thanks for bearing with my comments.
I'm not a lawyer (which is obvious), but one who has worked in
the personal
[[Page 25173]]
computer industry since its inception, and one who is very concerned
about the long term implications of this case on the technology
market, and the economy.
Tom Gordon
President, Framework Deliveries, LLC
2070 Linkside Dr
Alpharetta, GA 30005
[email protected]
MTC-00009584
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
On the matters of Bill Gates and Microsoft corporation,It seems
to be a sad day for the United States of America,when the U.S.
Government penalizes Microsoft for being enterprising and
innovative.Is this not the land of the free?Where you are supposed
to have certain rights,including intellectual ones!What Microsoft
has done is not illegal,and there only goal was to make the world a
smarter and easier place to live and learn in a new way never
thought of before.Kudos to Bill Gates and Microsoft!!! Please
``Think'' before you Judge! Thanks,
Mr.Roy William Myers,Jr.
Winston-Salem,N.C.
[email protected]
MTC-00009585
From: philip tuniman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am disgusted that a bunch of politicians trying to become the
governor or senator from Iowa or Connecticut, Massachusettts,
California, or the other five states, are costing many retirement
funds millions of dollars in lost Microsoft value, while they
pretend to be helping the poor. Of course, they are not the only
ones feathering their nest at the stock holders expense---the DOJ is
pretty good at that too. I recall Anne Bingington (?) who went on to
bigger and better things after winning a decision against Microsoft.
Then there was her sucessor, the unlamented Mr. Klein, who was off
to a big job (probably in Silicon Valley) before Judge Jackson had
given his first interview.
This great country was built by people who were innovators, not
by whiners like Oracle's Ellinson, Sun Micro's McNeally, or Steve
Case of the biggest monopoly in the country, AOL Time Warner.
The DOJ tried for years to break up IBM before they finally
called it off. I grew up hearing the cry, ``Break up the Yankees.''
People who can't cut it, are always trying to knock down the
successful ones. Microsoft was responsible for the Technology boom.
All of these losers who crying to the Government to breakup
Microsoft, should get down on their knees and thank God for Bill
Gates. He opened up the field for them.
The Government's settlement was a good deal for everyone---Stop
already!!
MTC-00009586
From: Jeffrey Bevelacqua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
607 Somerset Drive
Green Bay, WI 54301
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The Justice Department has kept Microsoft in court for more than
three years, but thankfully now there is a settlement in this case.
I am writing to express concern that this settlement may be in
jeopardy, I hope you will support the defend you reached with
Microsoft and an end to this case.
Microsoft has worked hard to become a world leader in the
software industry. The DOJ suit was meant to allay concerns about
the power of Microsoft. This settlement does that by forcing
Microsoft to disclose internal interfaces. This allows Microsoft
competitors unprecedented access to Microsofts code and operating
systems. Lets now end this case and allow Microsoft to get back to
doing what it does best, not litigation, but software development
and job creation. Your office can make this happen by ensuring the
settlement is completed.
Please fight against those that wish to derail this settlement.
The faster this case is settled the better off the American
information technology sector will perform in this tough economy,
and the more time your office will have to dedicate to other
priorities.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Bevelacqua
cc: Representative Mark Green
MTC-00009587
From: Richard Rubin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 12:58pm
Subject: One captive users comments re: Microsoft
ONCE AGAIN I must purchase the OVERPRICED Full Install of a
Microsoft Windows product (XP) because my previous OEM install of
Windows (Me, with ``free upgrade to Xp'' offered by Compaq, but not
yet received) has DEGRADED, despite my cautious grooming and care,
to become a WORLD OF MALFUNCTIONS and CRASHES. To ``Upgrade'', even
``for free'' would be to import your broken soft-machinery from the
past. And the corporate claim is, once again that Xp is more stable
than YOUR OWN OLD PRODUCT, which therefore, I infer, had a stability
problem? And you have strong-armed your Compaq OEM contract to
provide no relief on your DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. Little-Me will let my
thoughts be known to appropriate ears in the penalty decisions
pending for your creative, but overaggressive and undergenerous
corporation.
Richard Rubin
10407 McClemont Avenue
Tujunga, CA 91042
818-951-0255
MTC-00009588
From: Mars Cheung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone and move on. The country will
benefit from it. Thanks.
MTC-00009589
From: Robert E. Trice, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
I FOR ONE THINK ITS TIME TO END THIS CASE. ITS STILL A FREE
COUNTRY AND I AM A SUPPORTER OF BILL GATES, HE HAS A BETTER MOUSE
TRAP AND IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BUY IT, FINE, AND BETTER STILL IF HE
WANTS TO ALSO GIVE YOU SOMETHING FREE WITH IT, BETTER STILL. GET OFF
HIS BACK AND ON TO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE FOR A CHANGE. QUIT SPENDING
TAX PAYERS MONEY ON A DISHONEST ACCUSER ANYHOW. THANK YOU
MTC-00009590
From: Eric Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case
Isn't it time to get over the misguided suit against Microsoft?
there are far more important situations that cost taxpayers and
consumers much more than software. The energy and tax dollars spent
to pursue a competitive company has been a debacle. Self serving
competitors and their legislators have made a mockery of our
capitalist system.
Put this to bed and work on things that matter-energy prices,
like automotive gasoline for example- talk about collaborative price
levels! There you have a monopoly of many, all propping up prices-
definitely not supply and demand driven. I don't work for Microsoft
nor do any of my relatives.
Eric Dennis
Bothell, WA
MTC-00009591
From: Joe Hegenbart
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept this e-mail as evidence of my strongest support
for the ``Settlement'' that the DOJ has been able to reach with
Microsoft. I have the greatest admiration for the Microsoft
Corporation, its employees and its products (which are most
innovative, practical and moat reasonably priced). I could never
understand the DOJ's justification for, or their decision to
litigate; however, I applaud the Settlement. Please move on to more
important matters. Note also, I am so displeased that the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not accepted the settlement. I
consider this to be a single issue in the next election.
MTC-00009592
From: Rob Lund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
First let me say that I am a committed user of BeOS for several
reasons unique to the BeOS platform--usability, performance,
elegance, etc. Most of these are personal preferences. Due to the
tactics of Microsoft over the years though, I am even more of a
[[Page 25174]]
BeOS enthusiast. I am continually frustrated by Microsoft's
strongarm tactics and feel they have pushed smaller companies like
Be, Inc. out of the market unfairly. Therefore, I am part of a
worldwide network that is working on getting the BeOS or equivalent
back into the market place. However, there is no hope of success if
the following issues aren't addressed, such as open Office file
formats, Win32 APIs, making dual-boot options mandatory, etc. Thank
you for your committment to seeing a fair and just resolution to the
antitrust case against Microsoft. As a BeOS user, I feel it is my
right as a consumer to use the operating system of my own choice,
and I know that the DOJ's pursuit of a fair market will ensure the
BeOS's existence in the future.
Regards,
Rob
MTC-00009593
From: Frank and Hettie Helder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:10pm
Subject: End Clinton Eara anti Trust actions.
It is unfortunate that so much interference with the free market
has occurred and wasted so much time, effort and money. Please do
the right thing and bring it to an immediate end.
Frank E. Heidler Sr.
MTC-00009594
From: Don (038) Barb Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:02pm
Subject: Anti- trust effort of Clinton Admin.
Dear Justice Dept. of the USA:
I would like the federal government to not continue persecuting
our finest businesses such as Microsoft. They do a wonderful job of
producing products that make us proud to be an American. We already
have terrific trade deficits in competing with companies abroad in
the technical areas so lets support our efforts on this side of the
oceans...the USA! Thank you for your consideration of this view.
Barbara R. Palmer
MTC-00009595
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough, drop the whole suit and stop wasting gov.
money. Can't understand this whole lawsuit, what happened to free
enterprise?
MTC-00009596
From: Eric Benedict
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse,
This letter is concerning the proposed DOJ vs. Microsoft
settlement. I am an electrical engineer with over 15 years of
computer usage and experience including MS-DOS, Windows and UNIX/
Linux platforms. This experience includes usage, development and
system adminstration tasks.
I am greatly concerned and troubled about details of the
proposed settlement. In particular, I am troubled by the large and
numerous loopholes which are present in the settlement. In
particular, Section III, Part J, Paragraph 2 greatly concerns me.
This paragraph clearly allows Microsoft to set up several barriers
to prevent a third party from obtaining the information which
Microsoft is supposed to make available as part of the settlement.
Microsoft only has to release the information if Microsoft
determines that the third party ``meets reasonable, objective
standards established by Microsoft of certifying the authenticity
and viability of its business''. It is quite simple to establish
reasonable, objective standards which will exclude virtually any
third party which Microsoft doesn't wish to disclose the settlement
stipulated information to. Further, should such a third party exist,
Microsoft can further impede this party by requiring that the party
submit their code ``at its own expense ... to third party
verification, approved by Microsoft''. Thus, should someone make it
through the gauntlet of conditions stipulated by Microsoft to have a
legitimate need, Microsoft can require that they release their code
to a Microsoft approved tester. The are no controls over this third
party tester, their relationship with Microsoft, etc. Microsoft can
quite easily influence the 'testing fee' to be sufficiently out of
the reach of all but the wealthiest entities. It also isn't clear
that Microsoft won't be given access to the submitted code
information which also would assist Microsoft by allowing them to
review their competitor's source code.
Furthermore, I am also troubled that third party middleware can
be excluded from invocation if a Microsoft determined functionality
is not present. The way the current settlement agreement reads to
me, Microsoft can evaluate a third party program, determine a
functionality which this program does not provide, arbitrarily
decide that this functionality ``X'' is now ``required'' and then
ship the Microsoft OS version which doesn't allow the third party's
program to be launched. The third party then has to ask Microsoft
why, Microsoft then responds that they were missing this newly
required functionality ``X'' and that they need to provide it in
order to be compatible. Meanwhile the third party has already
``missed the boat'' and must wait until the next Microsoft release.
Of course for the next release, Microsoft can ``innovate'' some more
and determine a new functionality ``Y'' is now required (amazingly
missing from the third party's program) and so yet again, the third
party is effectively shut out from being included. This can continue
for as long as Microsoft wishes (or until the third party is
bankrupt) and so Microsoft can effectively determine what software
is allowed and prevent any undesired competition.
These (and the numerous other loop holes which are present)
effectively allow Microsoft to continue business as usual, but now
*legally*! This will effectively insulate Microsoft from future
anti-trust action since they can point to the fact that this
agreement allowed them to do those actions! Very good for Microsoft,
but not for the consumer!
I am also concerned that the settlement also only provides
(nearly non-existant) remedies on future behavior and does not
appear to contain any punishment for prior inappropriate actions.
This appears to me akin to allowing a successful but convicted
criminal (drug dealer, bank robber, inside trader) to keep all of
their ill gotten gains and then telling them to try to be good in
the future. Microsoft was determined to be guilty of breaking the
law. Where is the punishment?
In an ideal world, I would like to see some punitive measures
incorporated into the settlement; however, the world isn't ideal. At
the minimum, I would like to see some real restrictions (with out
loopholes) on Microsoft's future conduct. Anything less makes me
have real strong suspicions of a sell out to Microsoft and that our
system of justice is a joke or at least bought and paid for by the
highest bidder.
Thank you.
Eric Benedict
175 Lakewood Gardens Lane
Madison, WI 53704
[email protected]
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009597
From: RG Helms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THERASTAT DATA CORPORATION
7512 EAST INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD, SUITE 103
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28227-9412
Phone: (704) 567-4228 ? Fax: (704) 567-8699
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
After three long years of litigation Microsoft and the
Department of Justice have reached a settlement regarding the
antitrust suit. I believe that this settlement will be both
beneficial and fair not only to the industry as a whole, but also to
Microsoft and the federal and state governments. However, for this
settlement to be beneficial, it is necessary that it is actually
implemented. After the comment period, I urge you to quickly enact
the settlement for greater benefit of the slowing economy.
This settlement is fair and reasonable and was arrived at after
extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. Not only
that, but a settlement such as this will ensure that the industry
continues to deliver advanced technology to the market by fostering
competition, which in turn fosters new ideas.
This has gone on long enough. All of this action at the federal
level must be stopped, so that Microsoft can go to product
development, rather than going back to court. Thank you, and best
wishes for the New Year.
Sincerely,
R.G. Helms
Senior Developer/Programmer
MTC-00009598
From: Ours, Susanne
[[Page 25175]]
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to voice my opinion on this subject. I believe it is
time to end this pursuit of Microsoft and end this silly law suit
against them. Take the settlement and let Microsoft get back to
doing what it is good at...making software. The government should
leave businesses alone and stop trying to tinker with them. The
business world works much better when government stays out.
Thanks,
Sue
Susanne Ours
Divisional Programmer
Student Affairs/Taylor University
[email protected]
MTC-00009599
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
104 Whispering Brooke Drive
Newtown Square, PA 19073
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
My hope is that this note will help convince you and your
department to promote the acceptance of the Microsoft anti-trust
settlement proposal. I realize that yousupport the settlement, but I
want to emphasize the necessity of its promptenactment.
I believe that the proposal is a workable compromise between the
needs and desires of the parties involved. Microsoft will retain
itscorporate integrity and continue to operate as it has before. The
company will now have to open itself upto other companies???
software, and Microsoft will need to provide companies with
mechanisms to promote non-Microsoft programs. Non-Microsoft software
will be utilized in the Windows systems. New Windows systems will be
specifically designed to accommodate others' software. In short,
it???s a compromise that will benefit all parties in the long term.
Please support this settlement.
Sincerely,
Arthur Pizzirani
MTC-00009600
From: Paula Benner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 l:37pm
I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse!
MTC-00009601
From: R Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Consumers worldwide have benefited from Microsoft. It is in the
best interest of consumers, such as myself, to end this case and
proceed with settlement.
MTC-00009602
From: susan pizzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:52pm
Shut down the case and let America's tech industry get gack to
work.
MTC-00009603
From: Keith Hix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is more than fair on the DOJ's side. Only
problem is the additional nine (9) states holding out.
Thank you.
Keith Hix
Annex Systems Inc.
308B West Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone 919-846-5406 Fax 919-870-9335
E-Mail [email protected]
MTC-00009604
From: jim(092)va7gpd(092)n7gpd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:57pm
Subject: punnisment
microsoft will keep on doing what they have always done unless
it is made unprofitable for them to crush and kill off any one that
treathens them
just look at the auto map pro program they bought out the
company that produced and kill the program off because it was going
to be a better product than what they were going to sell and it was
cheaper and that is the way that they do business
MTC-00009605
From: Gary Keener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:59pm
Subject: Anti-trust Law Abuse
We support ending the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse!
Julia & Gary Keener
Tucson, AZ
MTC-00009606
From: Tom Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement--a thoughtful, non-profane comment
Sirs,
I have been a customer and user of Microsoft's products for more
than 16 years. During that time, I have observed them on many
occasions do those things for which they have been found guilty. I
am thrilled that the court has recognized the Microsoft abuses.
I voted for president Bush and have the highest respect for
Attorney General Ashcroft and his integrity, but since the Bush
administration entered the picture it appears that the government
has backed down on punishing Microsoft for its abuses.
Evidence that Microsoft believes that this is the case can be
seen in that they released WindowsXP with many many utilities
bundled in the product. This is precisely the sort of thing for
which they are being taken to task! Their bundling of Internet
Explorer with the OS was clearly for the purpose of killing their
competition, and it worked! Netscape has been ineffective for years.
It is a non-issue for Microsoft today, as is Novell.
How many more companies have died as a result of Microsoft's
predatory tactics? For Microsoft, winning is not the objective.
Killing their competition is their objective. Without sever
punishment, how many other companies will die? Microsoft's predatory
tactics have done in dozens of ``partners'' and technology
suppliers. Microsoft has a long history of: Intentionally writing
incompatibilities between their products and those of competitors
(DR DOS and Windows 3.1):
Acquiring their competitors, (Visio)
Re-writing their competitors' tools, (Netscape)
Stealing their competitors' tools, (Stac)
Directly attacking the competition with incompatibility, FUD,
and in some cases explicitly dishonest advertising. (Novell)
Time does not permit me to list all of the quantitative abuses
that Microsoft has undertaken, and the full scope of their
destruction can probably never be known. They have become one of the
most successful companies in the world by use of these tactics. In
spite of the verdict of abuse of monopoly power, Microsoft shows no
remorse for their actions and continues to this day to abuse their
power. They are flaunting their capability to
bundle products and attack competitors even while this decision
is being considered!
The only way that Microsoft can be convinced to change its ways
is by radical intervention both in terms of its business practices
and punitive measures. I am pleased that the terms of the agreement
spell out that Microsoft must no longer abuse their customers, but
the decision must go deeper, or the consumers will continue to
suffer. To be sure, Microsoft has offered much to the US economy,
and has shaped the consumer marketplace in huge ways. Computing
today is far more advanced than it was, but are we better off with
Microsoft than if it had never come into being? Microsoft's tactics
are not innovative, but rather suppress innovation.
In order to provide as equitable a result as possible, Microsoft
must at a minimum be forced to split into multiple companies, and
must pay substantive penalties for their abuses. They cannot restore
Netscape to it's former position, but unless real penalties are
assessed, (and I mean in terms of billions of dollars in CASH, not
products) they will continue to harm the consumer and the economy.
Talk of a punitive measure of $1B largely comprised of MS
products is frightening. That would serve to further MS hegemony in
the PC marketplace, and to suppress alternative technologies. This
would occur while actually costing Microsoft very little.
I make my living largely through implementation of Microsoft
products. I would prefer not to, but since they own the vast
majority of the marketplace, I have little choice. In spite of the
fact that MS product implementation provides most of my income, I
believe that Microsoft must be punished. Please do not settle for a
mere slap on the wrist! Finding suitable punitive measures would
allow for more innovation in the marketplace and will be beneficial
in the long term for the US and our economy.
Thank you for taking the time to read this message.
[[Page 25176]]
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Cooper
106 Rawlings Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
(301)869-6499
MTC-00009607
From: Jeff Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
I believe that the government has spent enough tax payers money
and has caused enough money to be lost by owners of technology
stocks and mutual funds to end this nonsense abuse of power.
Microsoft was wrong in how they conducted business, but people knew
it and have always had a choice of software to use. It may be
preloaded, but you don't have to use it. This witch hunt for
Microsoft is worst. What is the next business that conducts business
in the US will get to big so the government will step in and break
it up? The government is to big, break it up instead. Stop and let
Microsoft resume business, capitalism to remain, and confidence in
technology sector of our economy to resume.
Jeffrey L Powers
MTC-00009608
From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:20pm
Subject: Fw: keep fighting Microsoft
Original Message
From: ``Henry Sharp'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: keep fighting Microsoft
Thanks you for not agreeing to the US proposed Microsoft
settlement. Our government has let us down by caving in to
Microsoft.
I applaud your action to not accept the agreement and to fight
on for strong penalties.
Harriet Sharp
1165 Harbor Hills Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
805/966-7280
MTC-00009609
From: Jessie Conner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is time for the Federal and State Government to
settle the Microsoft case. I believe the current agreement is
reasonable and fair given the results of the trial. This agreement
will provide reasonable protection for the industry and still permit
Microsoft to continue to improve it's products to benefit millions
of America consumers.
However, I believe key aspects of the government's case are
flat-out wrong, such as the contention that Microsoft holds a
monopoly over desktop operating systems. That ignores the resurgent
Apple Macintosh and the emergence of new Unix-based competitors,
like Linux. Americans can purchase an operating system that cost
over a billion dollars to develop for $89, or they can get a less
capable Linux OS free, or buy a MAC. There is no evidence of
consumer harm and none was provide in the trial. I see the case
being driven significantly by politics. More specifically political
use of the DOJ for special interest (Microsoft's competitors).
Consider Microsoft's competition, Mirosoft must conveince
consumers that it's product at $89 dollars is better then it's
competitor (Linux) at the cost of $0 (zero). How can Microsoft be
considered a monoploy when it has this level of competition? Will
the government be happy when a Chinese version of Linux dominates
the desktop and tax revenue from hightech industries are lost.
Please review this issue carefully as it affects the ability of our
nation to compete in the world economy. Please don't undermind the
freemarket and hard work of millions of American who invest in
Microsoft and other great companies.
Concerned American
Jessie L Conner
6550 Point Comfort Lane
Charlotte, NC 28226
MTC-00009610
From: Michael Farnham, R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a huge organization and a de-facto monopoly.
However in the technology business this is somewhat meaningless and
they have traditionally produced some fantastic pieces of software.
I work for an organization that sells and supports Microsoft
products. One of our biggest vendors (Great Plains) was purchased by
Microsoft. Since that has happened they have raised our fees and cut
our margins. They have begun to charge for services that had been
free. I think the real issue with Microsoft is their predatory
business practices. I do not feel that the settlement will keep them
from engaging in practices that stifle competition or innovation.
The settlement appears to be a temporary fix that actually
reinforces their hegemony and has no real staying power to enforce
compliance.
It appears that they have purchased the right amount of
political influence and that the Department of Justice has sold us
all out. Hope you all got a lot of money.
R. Michael Farnham
Business Microvar, Inc.
Direct: (651) 746-1494
Fax: (651)746-1495
Cell: (612) 325-1993
MTC-00009611
From: Larry Streger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WE SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT!!!
Anne & Larry Streger
1405 Kings Row
Plainview, Texas 79072-9244
#806-291-8601
MTC-00009612
From: Ruth Lykins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530l
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
I wish to express my support for the proposed agreement between
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to
allow access to various Windows features to computer manufacturers
and has agreed to design future versions of Windows easier to
install on non-Microsoft software. The government has established an
oversight committee to ensure Microsoft compliance in the future. I
believe this is more than enough for any firm.
Bill Gates has worked long and hard to make Microsoft
successful. A person should not be penalized for being successful.
It is time to settle this matter and I believe this has been
accomplished through the proposed agreement.
I hope to see the settlement finalized soon and no more action
taken against Microsoft. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ruth Lykins
2425 Main Street
Ashland, Ky 41102
MTC-00009613
From: Christine Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:41pm
Subject: I SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
AS A TAXPAYING CITIZEN OF THE GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I
SUPPORT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S SETTLEMENT OF THE MICROSOFT
LAWSUIT. LET'S PUT AN END TO THE CLINTON ERA FORM OF ABUSE IN THE
FREE MARKET PLACE.
MTC-00009614
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Taxpayer Employee,
I would like to make you aware of my strong feelings on the
Microsoft case. I think it is a case that should be resolved quickly
and fairly. I noticed that the stock market decline began about the
time of the case, and I know Microsoft is a very important part of
the US economy, especially in the area of future growth. I know that
Microsoft has helped, not hurt, consumers, and has provided great
stimulus to our national economy. As a taxpayer, citizen, and voter,
I would like to see this matter resolved so that we can get our
economy rolling again, which would help all Americans.
Thanks for considering this. [I have no affiliation with
Microsoft].
Bert Brumett
Shoreline, WA
MTC-00009615
From: Terry Scanlon
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
[[Page 25177]]
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Microsoft Corporation has accepted the U.S. government's finding
that it engaged in anti-competitive practices in violation of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act. By accepting the terms of the ``Proposed
Final Judgment'' the corporation signals its intent to end the
litigation and settle this issue as quickly as possible. It is a
mark of Microsoft's statesmanship and good sense that it has
accepted the judgment and will abide by the law. The Court has made
its decision and all must accept it.
Incredibly, the states opposing this settlement want the Court
to define future standards for engineering software in a competitive
marketplace.
They want Microsoft to give its source code to competing
software developers so that competitors can write new applications
that will work off Microsoft's operating system.
They also want Microsoft to rewrite its operating system so that
computer manufacturers can put onto Microsoft's system the programs
of other companies, such as the Java program produced by Sun
Microsystems. In other words, the states invite the Court to
anticipate and remedy future and unproven anti-competitive actions
by Microsoft even though the development and future uses of software
cannot be predicted. The states' remedy-to force additional
disclosures beyond those in the Proposed Final Judgment, which the
federal government has determined are sufficient to curb the
company's anti-competitive practices-confuses aiding the process of
competition with aiding specific competitors.
The technology of the information age is rapidly evolving. It is
foolhardy for courts or policymakers to attempt to direct the future
course of software applications. It is particularly inappropriate
for courts to do this on the assumption that one company will act in
bad faith and undertake anti-competitive practices in the future.
This in effect is what the states advise the Court to do.
Sincerely,
Terrence Scanlon
Chairman, Capital Research Center
and
Former Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
MTC-00009616
From: Rafiki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:52pm
Please end clinton era dealings, that draft dodger has hurt the
entire country..
MTC-00009617
From: Barbara Uhrig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:53pm
Subject: Let Microsoft alone
I was thrilled to find an address I could use to let you know
that the Microsoft case is the silliest thing I have ever seen. In
high school, we studied about breaking up monopolies, and I believed
the line that monopolies stifle the market. This may be true in
steel production, but not in the idea arena. It seems that all that
happened is that Microsoft spent millions defending itself against
the government which spent millions trying to break up the company.
The Bell Telephone company was broken up. Friends had to move away
after their jobs vanished. Now service (repairs) is not very good
and even Ameritech has put on (twice) packages of services that I
never ordered. I don't think that breaking up the telephone company
facilitated the development of telephones, and I don't think that
breaking up Microsoft will facilitate the improvement of computers.
Sincerely,
Barbara L. Uhrig
8718 Jamaica Court
Indianapolis, IN 46219-2505
MTC-00009618
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing this e-mail to encourage the court to settle the
Microsoft suit. I do not believe the public has been damaged by
Microsoft's practices. Not being an attorney, I do not understand
all the nuisances of the case, but being a private citizen it does
seem to me this case is being fueled by Microsoft's competitors. I
also will add I am writing this e-mail on an Apple computer. My
concern the reason Microsoft is being singled out is because they
have not played the political game as well as they might have. I
find that a sad commentary on our justice system. In closing I would
think it would behoove the justice system to investigate Enron where
many have been seriously financially damaged.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Mary Bush
MTC-00009619
From: STEPHEN J BANNON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I totally disagree with the government. Microsoft did not do
anything wrong and the law itself should be erased from the books on
moral grounds. This is the best example of non-objective law that we
have on the books today. In a free country you are free to do
anything as long as you don't infringe on anyone rights which Bill
Gates didn't do. Capitalism is not based on free competition, it is
base on freedom i.e. the freedom to think of any idea and see if the
market will buy it Therefore the Justice Department should be doing
what it should have been doing all along protecting the rights of
its citizens from the likes of bin laden not going after a true
American like Bill Gates The justice Department should drop all
charges and praise him from his sprit The people around the hate us
for this sprit and they want to kill us for our ideas. Govverment
just wants to muffle and hurt its citazens with this unjust law. It
is a shame that in a country that upholds freedom as its basic tenet
that a man can not do business as he pleases.
Stephen Bannon
Garden Grove Ca.
MTC-00009620
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:05pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settement
VICTORIA M. FORREST
P.O. Box 222
Botsford, Connecticut 06404
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a 16-year employee in the technology field and user of
Microsoft products and services, I am happy to see that Microsoft
will not be broken up by the recent antitrust settlement with the
Department of Justice. In fact, I believe that the case never should
have been brought against them in the first place.
Over the last decade, Microsoft has done much for the IT
industry and the American economy as a whole. They have created
jobs, raised performance standards, and led innovation into the 21st
century. While Microsoft should have been more open with some of its
technology and systems, lawmakers and politicians have no right to
penalize them for being the best. if anything, Microsoft should be
applauded and given a degree of freedom to innovate.
During our current economic crisis, I believe politicians and
lawmakers should be looking out for the best interest of American
public by facilitating growth and development in business and not
hindering it. They need to put aside their political differences and
allow Microsoft and the IT industry to focus on business. I
sincerely hope that no further litigation is brought against
Microsoft in the future.
Thank you for your time.
Victoria Forrest
MTC-00009622
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:31pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
To Whom It May Concern:
I think the ruling of the Court Of Appeals is a fair and just
ruling and should STAND for the benefit of every person in our
Country. Please lets end this thing.
Sincerely,
William H. Hopkins
22113 Soliel Circle West
Boca Raton, Fl. 33433
MTC-00009623
From: donaldjordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:35pm
Subject: microsoft lawsuit
Why doesnt the goverment drop these charges against this
company, seems there are more important issues that needs to be
adressed at this time.
Thank you.
D. Jordan
MTC-00009624
From: Xia You
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25178]]
I think this settlement between Microsoft and DOJ is very good
for both the consumer and the national economy.
Regards.
MTC-00009625
From: Bowen, James W
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
80 Candlelight Drive
Glastonbury, CT 06033
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement
between the federal government and Microsoft. The terms of the
settlement seem fair and reasonable, and further litigation on the
federal level must be ended to allow business to resume.
Considering the terms of the agreement, Microsoft must make
several significant changes in the way they handle business. The
company must now allow its competitors to use interfaces from
Windows products to develop more accessible and efficient
applications, and cannot face retribution from Microsoft for doing
so. A ``Technical Committee'' will ensure that this happens. This
would appear to resolve the concerns raised by the litigants. With
the many terms of the agreement, seeking further litigation will be
a waste of time and money for not only the taxpayers but the
government as well.
Sincerely,
James W. Bowen
MTC-00009626
From: James Robison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:47pm
Subject: Get off Microsoft
Right after the Clinton JD went after Microsoft, stock prices
began to go down the tubes. The reason was that investors could see
that the federal government was playing favorites. And, if the JD
could go after Microsoft to help out Sun, et al, who would be next?
Lets get back to equal justice for all: drop the case entirely!
James C. Robison
Edenton, NC
MTC-00009627
From: James L. Niemann, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:50pm
Subject: End Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse now!
I think it is high time to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
I consider the Microsoft case simply a witch hunt by a bunch of
computer illiterate government representatives. Computers are so
much easier to use thanks to Bill Gates and Microsoft and anyone who
does not want to use Microsoft products does not have to. You only
have a monopoly when their are no options available, such as the
United Sates Postal Service.
Signed:
James and Ruth Ann Niemann
573 Huntleigh Ct.
Farmington, MO 63640-2036
(573) 701-0135
MTC-00009628
From: Pap, Victor III
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I write to publicly express my opinion that Microsoft Corp. a.)
did not have a monopoly but b.) that in the event it did have a
monopoly, then the monopoly could only be an actual benefit to
consumers. Finally, I strongly believe the legal actions of both the
states and the companies are more harmful economically and against
the notion of the free market, a principle on which this country is
founded.
If there was anything more I could do to support Microsoft, I
would.
Victor Pap III
Press Secretary/Legislative Aide
Representative George N. Peterson, Jr.
House Minority Whip
State House, Room 124
Boston, MA 02133
Tel. 617.722.2100
MTC-00009629
From: Pap, Victor III
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement II
I also forgot to mention that I honestly believe the economic
boom of the 90's had more to do with a universal windows platform on
which technologies could build and compete with products than either
the President or Congress, Democrats or Republicans. The
government's suit on Microsoft may have also had a minor effect on
the already declining profitability of tech companies' (I'm sure it
didn't cause it, but it certainly did not help).
Victor Pap III
Press Secretary/Legislative Aide
Representative George N. Peterson, Jr.
House Minority Whip
State House, Room 124
Boston, MA 02133
Tel. 617.722.2100
MTC-00009630
From: Festival Books
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement should NOT be approved.
Microsoft obstructed and prevented fair and legal competition. The
proposed settlement fails to achieve the necessary goal of a proper
remedy. It fails to halt illegal conduct. It fails to promote
competition in the industy. It fails to deprive Microsoft of its
illegal gains.
Dr. O.F. Rothchild
MTC-00009631
From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/8/02 4:01pm
Subject: Too Many Chefs . . . Play Action
Recently, a narrowcast cable commercial aired last evening on
Monday Night Football featuring a young man picking up his early
morning newspaper while a neighbor was also retrieving his. (I am
usually up very early in my neighborhood, retrieving the newspaper
before 6 AM in most cases.)
The commercial has a deja vu theme to it as the event is
presented twice during the 30 second spot. This commercial first
aired after Sunday January 6, 2002. The young man first says, ``Hmm,
. . . Sunday . . . going to be a good day'', as he looks at the
cover of the large Sunday edition. The neighbor yells out, ``Too
many chefs!'' The scene is repeated with the comments, ``Play
Action!'', for the neighbor's line.
The message is an explanation/reinforcement of the multiple
``chefs'', ``so called leaders'', and others who are directing the
multinational million dollar publicity campaign. Of course, as the
sage adage goes, ``too many cooks spoil the broth''. The original
recipe for Quaker Instant Stadium Organist called for this action
(similar to the cloning techniques seen in the film ``The Boys From
Brazil'':
Scenario . . .
Secret Government Plan--Dateline 1955 . . . height of the atomic
cold war with the Soviet Union . . . Eisenhower/Nixon administration
. . . Duck & Cover mentality . . . Fallout Shelters in shopping
malls & churches . . . Walt Disney opens DisneyLand--Anaheim . . .
can social engineering create replacements for our film and music
stars?
CAST
Mother: Tennessee Virgin who stops running
Father: Navy veteran who's hard work and blue collar Chicago
connections help him climb social and economic ladders.
Mother's unmarried spinster Aunt: Confined to her musical world
spinning tunes from her Hammond Organ Novachord. Lives with mother
and father in 1950s with extended family. Aunt is about 10 years
older than mother, and a favorite friend.
def. Tennessee Virgin . . . sister who can outrun her brother
Take first born male child and move child through many homes,
neighborhoods, & school districts including private schools. Use
television social programming through broadcast advertising to
entice parents to ``move up'' during the 1960s to larger homes in
suburban Chicago. Keep father traveling majority of time in order to
continue music preparations for family.
Force oldest child to learn keyboard music via electronic organs
& recorded music. Deny college eligible youth to attend college of
his choice and educational level. Acquiesce local to community
college education. Channel youth to entertain A.C. Nielsen
executives in Northbrook, Illinois restaurant, designed to launch
replacement for Chicago Blackhawks Hockey Team Stadium Pipe Organist
upon retirement. Use private Germanic musical teacher to provide
initial instruction and ``reference'' for A.C. Nielsen / Grove Inn
first professional musical performance.
Original Stadium musician performed from about 1930--1972 before
first protege became a permanent replacement from 1972-1982. Finally
promote best of all of the performing organist youth from the
Chicago area to Blackhawk Stadium Organist, firing first
[[Page 25179]]
protege in 1982. There were probably 10 restaurants or night clubs
developing talent for the Chicago Stadium, like minor league ball
clubs & college sports programs. Now . . . I have already documented
this in various ways . . . and it's really a weird recipe, but it's
true!
The chefs in Washington DC, Texas, California, Chicago, &
Redmond, WA have been stalling & salting this recipe without
providing me any interesting work, or rights to invest my money in
areas of my interest . . . aviation, space technology, and personal
fitness. This ``recipe'' has provided no performing musician
interested in performing, and has only stalled justice.
The ``creative'' Marino neighborhood was designed by one of the
Aliso Viejo or Redmond chefs who wanted Buy.com to grow, forcing me
into a hostile area. After choosing financial services with a
competitor to the Bank of America and fighting an B of A executive
decision to intentionally ruin my credit, I fought back.
Later, the local chefs tried to spin a musical performance with
the Crystal Cathedral and the Mighty Ducks Hockey Team . . . failing
on both attempts, but causing me additional attacks, and assaults by
those involved with the nefarious schemes. My recent PR campaign at
NBC-Burbank once again brought international chefs who screwed with
the recipe . . . fortunately I was in the studio audience when Jay
Leno, Wolfgang Puck, & Tim Allen tried to make pizza together!
In between all of the years of performances & musical
instruction I have received an education in marketing, finance,
aviation & space technology, electronic and digital circuit design,
healthcare, legal, and fitness through my own personal interests.
Millions of people have benefitted from my innovations, and
thousands have personally purchased their computers, and information
technology from me!
The TD Waterhouse print and broadcast advertising commercials
feature a retired executive relinquishing the ``decisions'' to their
clients via the TD Waterhouse website with a comment, ``It's your
investment choice''. To this very day, in 2002, other family members
are ``controlling'' my earned assets to channel me once again to a
musical performance, denying me my rights and earned income through
royalties and investments illegally stolen from me. They have
schemed with the Crystal Cathedral, Arrowhead Pond, Disney, and the
Tonight Show . . . holding me back from a career I have enjoyed and
contributed to from 1977 to 2002 in personal electronics, business
and network computing systems, and advanced telecommunications.
The assets are in the billions and some of the ``bigshots''
controlling them have ties to the US Government with bonds, notes,
and business transactions. They just don't want to give up this
control . . . but, people are replaced everyday . . . for instance .
. . The ABC television network replaces their veteran executive, Stu
Bloomberg with Susan Lyne and AOL Time Warner adjusts the
``goodwill'' of the 2001 approved merger by $60,000,000,000. That's
sixty billion dollars, folks . . . that's a sum that could probably
purchase all of Irvine, California and parts of Newport Beach!
Thanks for listening! Please help me obtain control of my assets
in order for all of us to improve our Nation and other area of the
world.
Robert Remington
MTC-00009632
From: Bob Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:59am
Subject: input on Microsoft
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to see the unjust action aganist Microsoft stoped!!
Computer users have benefited from the Microsoft Windows. Bill Gates
has helped the whole computer using world. The other companies were
not looking to improve the computing invironment and create user-
friendly programs and got left behind with their approach the their
operating systems and programs. If the Justice Department continues
their unfouded attack on Mirosoft the computer users will be the
loosers.
Thanks for reading my opinion.
Bob Jackson
Irving, Texas
MTC-00009633
From: Barry Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my support for a settlement of the
Microsoft Antitrust case. Before we continue to squander more
taxpayer dollars, please be done with this process. I never believed
the process, and still am angry at the use of countless government
resources to hobble an American company involved in the high tech
industry. Anti-trust protection is a valid responsibility of the
DOJ, and yet it seems that the competitors were directing the case.
Any reasonably astute American must know that in the environment in
which Microsoft operates, a new and better OS, Browser, or other
competitive softwear could be introduced tomorrow which will render
Windows obsolete. As a taxpayer I would prefer that not one more
dollar be spent on this waste of money.
Barry D. Stephens
37 Gray Lodge Road,
Kittery, Maine, USA
MTC-00009634
From: Joyce Kerze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:13pm
Subject:
Joyce R. Kerze
4899 Golf Village Drive
Powell, Ohio 43065
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
As an avid user of Microsoft products, I would like to express
my opinion that legal action against Microsoft should stop. I think
you have offered Microsoft a good settlement. I believe that the
current settlement will suffice to allow computer manufacturers new
rights to configure systems with access to Windows features.
I urge you to continue on the course of the present settlement,
and not get distracted by the critics trying get this settlement
withdrawn. Thissettlement is fair, and will create more competition
in the IT industry. This settlement requires Microsoft to open up
its code to competitors, so that they will be able to create better
software. Furthermore under this agreement a technical committee
that includes a government official will watch over Microsoft full
time. Your support of this settlement is necessary to bring it to
fruition, and that is needed to bring this three-year-old case to an
end.
Once again I would like to urge you to put your full support
behind the finalization of the settlement you have offered to the
Microsoft Corporation. Don't let the anti Microsoft peanut gallery
win the day.
Sincerely,
Joyce Kerze
MTC-00009635
From: R. Michael Kasperzak, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my support for the settlement between
Microsoft and the United States.
As a former attorney and professional mediator, I have faith in
the mediation process and believe that the negotiators for the
United States made the best deal they felt they could in light of
continuing litigation. I do not believe it is in the public interest
for the Judicial branch to second guess the the Executive Branch
with respect to the terms of the settlement, and therefore encourage
the court to approve the pending settlement.
Very Truly Yours,
R. Michael Kasperzak, Jr.
Dispute Resolution Specialists
MTC-00009636
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sirs:
I understand that this is the time for public comment on the
Microsoft settlement. My feeling is that a settlement is long
overdue and should be in favor of Microsoft. Our whole economy is
dependent on free enterprise. Ever since this all began our economy
has been in decline. It is time to get this over with and get back
to the business of business. It is almost impossible to use a
computer and not use a Microsoft product. This case has hurt my
economic well being. Time to settle.
Thank you,
William N Mickelson
MTC-00009637
From: david tiry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:53pm
Subject: Sirs:
Sirs:
I would like to see an end to Clinton era anti trust abuses!!!!
TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!
[[Page 25180]]
Thanks,
David Tiry
MTC-00009638
From: Sally Detloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:55pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
WOOD APPRECIATE A SWIFT END TO THE JUSTICE DEPT. ACTIONS AGAINST
MICROSOFT. kEEP IN MIND THAT THE JUSTICE DEPTS ACTIONS, SINCE THE
BEGINNING, HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TOWARDS THE WELFARE OF A GROUP OF
COMPANIES, RATHER THAN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE CONSUMER.
SINCERELY,
GERALD F. DETLOFF
[email protected]
MTC-00009639
From: CA Cobb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:00pm
Subject: I am a citizen who requests an end to the Anti-trust
law abuse directed at Microsoft.
There have been many jobs and much money generated by the works
of the Microsoft Company and it is time to ``get back to business''
and quit the ``harping'' that began in the Clinton-era and persists
now. Please stop it and move forward for the good of the Country and
the economy.
Sincerely,
Betty J. Cobb
Waco, Texas
MTC-00009640
From: Chuck DeSario
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:04pm
Subject: Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
To whom this may concern,
As an American tax payer, and business man. I would greatly
appreciate the Justice Dept. ending this anti-trust suit with
Microsoft. Simply put and in my opinion the action that the D.O.J.
took against Microsoft during the Clinton administration has been
counter productive, not only has this issue cost the American tax
paying public, millions, if not billions of dollars in lost income
and corporate and personal income tax it has virtually destroyed our
electronics industry single handily.
Please know that I am not pro monopoly, but I am a realist.
Microsoft for all it's faults helps create a great economic base for
this country. How you might ask does Microsoft contribute to the
economy, simple.
1. They employ a large number of employee's who earn incomes
which are distributed locally and nationally. Taxes are extruded
from their pay checks, which in-turn contribute to the needs of both
state and federal governments.
2. Microsoft's software programs are so cluttered with garbage,
that the average computer requires huge amounts of memory, ( XP, as
an example requires your computer to have at least 128mb of memory
on board), just to install the program, i.e.: R & D, employees,
income, income and corporate taxes, etc. from memory companies.
3. Microsoft's programs also require larger capacity Hard
Drives, which in-turn is great for our Hard Drive industry, (Maxtor,
Seagate, Quantum, IBM.) i.e.: R & D, employees, income, income and
corporate taxes, etc. Taxes are generated from both corporate,
individual earnings, as well as taxes generated from the sale of the
items at the retail level.
4. Processors, Intel Processors. Microsoft's programs are so
cluttered you have to have a faster processor just to wade through
all the garbage, otherwise you'll be sitting for hours just waiting
for your computer to pull up the smallest of projects. i.e.: R & D,
employees, income, income and corporate federal and state taxes,
etc.
Bottom line, destroy, revamp, breakup Microsoft, and you destroy
our computer industry. Yes, Microsoft may be a monopoly, WHO CARES!
Millions, Billions of dollars, both income and tax dollars are being
lost everyday you persist with this Anti--Trust law suit. Enough is
Enough, lets get our economy back on track. Microsoft in it's own
weird way has contributed to our economy for the last 10yrs. Please
for the sake of the nation, cease in the pursuit of all law suites
against Microsoft.
Sincerely
Chuck DeSario
Louisville, CO
MTC-00009641
From: Porter Cragin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12224 Northeast 130th Way
Kirkland, Washington 98034
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to express my opinion on the recent Microsoft
antitrust case. After three years it is obvious that the settlement
had a great deal of care put into it.
Microsoft has been dealing with this issue for three years and
the litigation appears to have stymied business throughout the
computer industry. Pursuing further litigation could possibly bring
an entire industry to its knees. This company has put out some
outstanding products, and now stands to be punished for their
innovative thinking. The dedication and efforts shown are what build
this country. Do we really want to penalize them for doing a great
job in there chosen field of endeavor?
Let's not be the ones to slow down our own progress.
Sincerely,
Porter Cragin
12224 NE 130th Way
Kirkland, WA 98034
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009642
From: Nikil M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello I am a member of the community that suuports BeOS. I feel
that Microsoft's tactics limited BeOS from competing in the market
despite a product that was very competitive. As a rememdy I suggest
that Microsoft immediately allow dual or triple boot options for
computers from the large computer manufacturers like Dell and Compaq
without any penalties. There should also be much more documentation
on the win32 API so if a developer wishes to create a compatible yet
superior product they may. Finally Microsoft should pay I think
between 50 and 100 million dollars to either Be Inc or Palm for the
damages their tactics cost to the companies. Nikil Mulakken
MTC-00009643
From: Phil Hall
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an Information Technology professional with several years of
experience, I watched and read the news about the Microsoft trial
with great anxiety. I know full well that if handled improperly the
situation would destroy an existent company (Microsoft) for no
reason, while at the same time elevating competitors for no reason
as well.
Microsoft is like no other company in the history of the world.
To liken it to pre-antitrust AT&T, Standard Oil, Alcoa, etc. is a
gross underestimation of Microsoft's importance and would do great
injustice.
I will freely admit that some actions taken by Microsoft have
been potentially anticompetitive; however, if you examine the track
records of the competition you will find them in a more stable
environment now than the time before Microsoft's improper
activities. Without exception, all the competition has benefited
from the current situation, and the topic of harm to the consumer is
nothing more than a smoke-screen.
Look at what Microsoft has done with the Windows Operating
System. It has brought the Internet to the masses in an easily
understandable form, it has ``leveled the playing field'' for
software developers and the home user, it has brought into play an
entire industry that was non-existent prior to Windows 95 being made
available for sale.
Certainly, Microsoft has benefited, as is to be expected. But to
claim that the consumer has been unduly harmed is foolish and
outright wrong. If Microsoft is to be punished, let the punishment
fit the crime. Dissolution is inappropriate, only a fine would be
sufficient. A monetary penalty is the only correct solution. This
coupled with a probationary oversight on business practices would
definitely hinder Microsoft's alleged illegal business practices and
would allow the US to recoup any losses from the investigation and
would allow for a fostering of the market system to flourish.
I would remind you that Windows is dominant in the marketplace,
and to damage that would create undue chaos. It is safer, and wiser,
for Microsoft to remain a single unit and to be penalized via
monetary fine rather than to take action that in less than 5 years
would be inconsequential. The field of Information Technology grows
and changes at such a rate that any decision made now would seem
foolhardy within 5 years.
Make certain to understand that to promote competition for the
mere sake of competition
[[Page 25181]]
can be detrimental to what is actually in the best interest of the
people. The Law doesn't make that distinction.
Thank you,
Phil Hall
1230 Dundee Avenue
Waterloo, IA 50701
MTC-00009644
From: Ben Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:11pm
Subject: Clinton Era
I would like to see the end of the Clinton era abuse of anti-
trust legislation and court action.
Microsoft has provided jobs to multitudes of people and made
millionaires of another group who started out as workers.
Thank you,
Sue & Ben Hughes
Lindale, Texas
MTC-00009645
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ: I am alarmed that the Microsoft case may be reopened. It
seems to me that the litigation simply punished a company that
innovated, created jobs and wealth, and was successful. I was happy
to see the case settled and would not want that settlement derailed.
I notice that since the DOJ began litigation against Microsoft, its
stock price has declined. Is that what you call ``the public
interest?'' My retirement mutual funds probably own Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Shayna Alterman
MTC-00009646
From: vera feingold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:16pm
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
To Bill Gates
No good deed should go unpunished.
If you and your Company would have failed, you would been
entitled to tax breaks and other assistance from the government.
Since you do not need any assistance from the Government, the
government seeks revenge. Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat
scorned.
As a volunteer teacher for SeniorNet, I want to thank you for
yoour generous on-ging contributions of software for the centers and
for the teachers.
Vera Feingold
MTC-00009647
From: zxxx xxx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if
the following issues aren't addressed:
--open Office file formats,
--Win32 APIs,
-- make dual-boot options mandatory.
P.S. Sorry for my english. I'm writing from Greece
Regards
Lambros S.
MTC-00009648
From: Paul Moncznik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is important for both the industry and the economy
that this settlement quickly get passed. This a tough settlement,
and a fair one for Microsoft, its competitors, and for consumers.
And besides, how could anyone be against a settlement which provides
computers for thousands of the country's neediest schools?
MTC-00009649
From: Ivory M Bassett-Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:32pm
To Whom It May Concern:
I am extremely happy that this issue with Microsoft is being
resolved. I was very pleased when the suit came about because of
personal experiences trying to use other browsers, i.e. Netscape as
well as IE.
The MS os would shut down and I would have to manually shut down
my pc. This was not only damaging my hard drive but was causing
great frustration. I was investigating all potential OS (operating
systems) but everyone of them lacked. I felt trapped unless I chose
Apple. Which I did for my then college daughter. Nevertheless, she
soon found it too cumbersome to convert and download the materials
she needed for her studies and by her junior year in nursing she
brought a unit that came with a Microsoft OS. I always felt trapped
in the MS no-alternative bag. In fact I just purchased a new
computer last Sept. 2001, it came with ME already loaded and I would
receive an automatic XP upgrade when it came out in Oct. Without
knowing anything about the XP I began to investigate its attributes
and pits. I found out it literally has the potential to see who is
using their software, who is sharing it (I personally believe when I
buy something its mine and I should be able to do with it whatever I
please--that includes giving it to whomever I please, using it as I
please--I PAID FOR THAT PRIVILEGE.)and if need be shutting down your
system. They have since sent me the software with no info on these
ramifications only mildly informing ME, the consumer, of the
enhancements. If I really want to get more out of it I guess I could
by one of Microsofts XP learning books or software packages. I am
still in a quandary as to whether or not to install this product.
Anyway I am glad this issue has been bought out and has been
resolved to some degree. I hope the consumers can now be given the
opportunity to have a choice of products. As you can see Microsoft
has given me one benefit I hold dear, that is HOTMAIL.
Thank You
Ivory Bishop
MTC-00009650
From: Graham--d
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs
I am what I think is a `standard user' meaning I use Microsoft
products for my work and at home. I work in a bank which has
standardized on Microsoft products and from a user's perspective
they work, they talk to each other and we rely on Microsoft to sort
out problems of compatibility.
Breaking up the company or charging massive fines is simply not
right and will have a negative impact on a company that helps keep
America ahead of the world. Can you imagine the French doing this? I
think that sometimes we do not realize what we have here. The
settlement in my view is totally fair and I question the motives of
those seeking to overturn it.
Apart from being a user of their products I have no involvement
in the company and do not own any shares or have any financial
interest in the ultimate decision.
Graham Doubtfire
[email protected]
MTC-00009651
From: B.L. Doern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 5:40pm
Subject: Drop it already!
Microsoft is a big player in our economy. Please finish this
case as soon as possible so that we can get it behind us and move on
to economic recovery.
BettyLou Doern
Modesto, California
MTC-00009652
From: Becky Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust law
MTC-00009653
From: Helene (038) Ken Hickey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As provided in the Tunney Act, I wish to indicate my full
support for the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
I have reviewed the documents relating to this settlement
Kenneth T. Hickey
58 Longmeadows Road
Wilton, CT 068971-101
MTC-00009654
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, the proposed settlement is adequate. Please put
this issue to rest so that we can move forward on other more
pressing issues and matters confronting our nation. Microsoft is not
the enemy! Thank you.
MTC-00009655
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has decent products at reasonable prices, that is why
they are the largest software vendor. However they are not the only
one. I can think of three other operating systems and a couple other
office suites just off hand and I am not in the computer industry,
there could easily be more that I am un aware of. Very often I can
[[Page 25182]]
find share ware or even free ware that does the job for me and use
these types of programs all the time.
I think it is a mistake to try to disassemble Microsoft. The
goal of intergrating programs to work better together is the way we
should be headed not tearing them down.
E S Conrad, Jr.
1400 Talisman Circle
Virginia Beach, Va. 23464
MTC-00009656
From: Lawrence York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:25pm
Subject: Regarding the MSFT Settlement
I am a Microsoft Business user, Portfolio Manager and Consumer.
I strongly feel that it is time to get the Microsoft case settled
and I believe the terms and conditions reached by the Federal
Government are fair and reasonable. I believe that the hold-out
states are politically motivated due to their tech constituencies
who seek more to distract a successful competitor than than to see
justice served.
I think it is a disservice to the public to spend additional
taxpayer money on this case and I think reaching a settlement will
greatly improve the prospects for the tech sector. This in turn
should benefit the government by helping the industry recover from
its deep recession eventually returning it to profitability.
A lot of time has elapsed. Microsoft and the Government have
reached a settlement that strikes a balance for the public good.
Please now, lets focus on rebuilding and growth not political agenda
and distruction. America needs this now more than ever.
Lawrence York
Portfolio Manager,
The WWW Funds
MTC-00009657
From: Jean Saylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe that the Microsoft Settlement is fair and just, and
would urge you to ensure that it is not changed. I believe it is
crucial for the future of the industry that Microsoft be allowed to
continue their innovative work. I feel that it is particularly
important for additional features to be integrated into the existing
operating system. Any computer user can attest to the extensive
compatibility problems which exist when trying to integrate software
from various manufacturers. For many users, just the thought of
having to install various pieces of software, whether or not from
multiple manufacturers, is deterrent enough to prevent them from
getting the most out of their computers, or even from attempting to
use a computer. If computers are ever going to be useful to those of
us in the general population who do not have extensive technical
backgrounds, then simpler, integrated solutions are necessary. I
believe Microsoft is one of the best at providing this. I would
certainly like to see more companies also attempting to provide a
fully-integrated solution, but prohibiting our leading company from
participating is ludicrous. And certainly, your role should not be
to punish success.
Thank you for your consideration to this point of view.
Jean Saylor
MTC-00009658
From: G. B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:39pm
Subject: comment
Dear Sr. or Madam:
I am an electrical engineer and It is my opinion that in the US
best interest Microsoft has to remaine strong and united but in the
other hand I think the US Government has to regulate Microsoft
activities because they really take advantage of there monopoly
position and a good example is my last experience: I bought a new
computer with Windows XP home edition and I connected it to my home
LAN only to find out that this new version has no privacy, I can not
put a password to any file, resource or carpet so I can not have my
information available in any computer of my house and at the same
time prevent my kids of seeing that information in other computer of
the LAN.
In previews versions of Windows (95, 98 and Millenium) this was
possible so Microsoft took out some functions and now if you want
those functions you have to buy the XP professional version (at a
higher price, of course). To make things worst, if you assume that
the new home version will have at least all the functions that the
last one had (a good assumption because this is the case with
manufacturers in a normal market and not in a monopoly) and buy it
there is no upgrade to the professional version paying only the
difference so if I want my privacy in my LAN I need to buy a XP
professional as if I did not have the XP home edition.
This is just one example of the kind of abuses that Microsoft
Monopoly make and that is why I think that the US Government has to
regulate Microsoft in a way that this kind of practices will be
avoided.
Many thanks for your attention.
Gregorio Beitman
MTC-00009659
From: Ralph Sickinger (R2)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:51pm
Subject: Proposal for Resolution to United States v. Microsoft
Settlement
Dear Sir(s) or Madam(s):
I respectfully submit the following proposal as a possible
penalty against Microsoft: My proposal is quite simple: Microsoft
should be compelled to release the complete source code for Windows
98 to the public domain. This proposal has the following benefits:
(1) It is simple and inexpensive to implement. It would be far
less ``traumatic'' or difficult to implement than (for example)
splitting up the company.
(2) It would benefit the public: one of the most significant
injuries to the consumer as a result of Microsoft's actions is the
lack of stability in the Windows OS. By comparison, Linux, which is
open source, is VERY stable, because there is a large developer
community that works at fixing bugs that appear. The Windows
community could benefit greatly from having an open-source version
of the Windows OS available.
(3) It would be reasonable: Windows 98 is now 3 year-old
technology; it is significantly behind Windows 2000 and Windows XP
in terms of it's development. Also, it is a major iteration behind
Windows 2000/XP; as a result, any competitor desiring to compete
against Microsoft, would not be able to compete directly against
Windows without some significant effort. At the same time, Windows
98 is still (just barely) current enough to not be worthless to the
public.
Microsoft has not had to focus on the consumer, or be responsive
to the consumer, since it does not face any significant competition
in the OS segment. A public domain version of Windows 98 (or a
variation of the OS further developed by a corporation) would
provide consumers with another choice for an operating system that
could still run the current generation of Windows software packages.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Ralph P. Sickinger
15735 Erwin Ct
Bowie, MD 20716
[email protected]
MTC-00009660
From: Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:56pm
Subject: I want to end Clinton era Anti trust law abuse against
Microsoft!
The whole thing with Microsoft has been insane. Leave Microsoft
alone, and get on with the business of running the country. If
people want to compete with Microsoft, then they need to get their
brains in gear!!! We want the handful of people who have pursued
this to get on with life.
Thanks
Tracey Sigle
Lincoln, NE
MTC-00009661
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@ inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 1/8/02 7:00pm
Subject: 21st Century Civilization
CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,[email protected]@i...
MTC-00009662
From: Eduard and Carol Prets
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:05pm
Subject: Get off your ass and leave Microsoft alone
At a time like this when everything is going to hell, why are
you wasting your time and money chasing after a company like
Microsoft. Microsoft's secret is not illegal. They have a product
that works--it's that simple. Other companies products either don't
work, or they are not easy to use.
So, suck it up. Take a loss. You've wasted enough of our money.
Tell all the other internet companies that are paying you that they
need to get a life.
Sincerely,
A Tax Paying Citizen of Washington State
[[Page 25183]]
MTC-00009663
From: David Larman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: examples: open
Office file formats, Win32 APIs and make dual-boot options
mandatory.
Regards,
David Larman
MTC-00009664
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:14pm
Subject: Wal-Mart vs Kmart
Dear DOJ:
Rather than allow this endless pursuit of Microsoft whose
products do NOT harm consumers, how about getting on Walmart's back
for a change? Walmart has put hundreds of thousands of small vendors
out of business, in addition to large chains like Caldor, Bradlee's,
Jamesway, etc.! It looks like Kmart may be next!
I recently visited our local Kmart; and I found more cashiers on
duty than there were customers in the store! Today, I made a
purchase of one item at our local Walmart; and I had to wait about
20 minutes in a cashier's line because there were a multitude of
customers and only about 5 cashiers on duty! The trick for Walmart
seems to be this: After opening a new store, spoil your customers at
first; then when they have been trained to frequent Walmart, lighten
up on customer service! As a monopoly, you don't have to be good to
your customers anymore! After all, the competition has for the most
part gone out of business!
I'm being forced more and more to shop at Walmart, as their
competitors ``fade away!'' DOJ should send a few agents incognito to
some of their stores; and verify or disprove my complaint.
An intriguing observation: ``How May I Help You?'' is imprinted
on the back of Walmart's employees' workjackets. Why on the back, I
always wondered. I often find myself hurrying after one or another
Walmart employee for help, as the ``How May I Help You?'' logo
recedes rapidly into the distance, like a Doppler Effect! Racing
after the offer of help, so to speak!
I wish something can be done to protect the few competitors that
still survive!
Thank you,
Nicholas S. Molinari
31 Whitman Street
Brick, NJ 08724-2448
732-458-8485
MTC-00009665
From: William Stella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear United States Department of Justice and U.S. District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: I am just a simple carpenter, (who
also happens to be very close in age to Judge Kollar-Kotelly--I will
be 58 soon and our world-perspective is likely to be fundamentally
somewhat similar), but I have some very real concerns regarding the
Microsoft lawsuits from both the federal DOJ and state AGs.
Basically, I think that none of you are acting in the best interests
of the vast majority of Americans. My deep feelings of patriotism--
and this is a very real patriotism issue--come from having served in
the 7th Special Forces Group and the 82nd Airborne Division from
1961 through 1964, AND my consequent understanding that ``all that
is necessary for the forces of evil to prevail in the world is for
enough good people to do nothing''. I actually suspect--especially
in the situation regarding the various state AGs gathering together
and `joining' in this legal action--that there are very strong
questions about the constitutionality of said activity.
Representatives from a number of states began to conspire and try to
force the federal government to take certain kinds of actions in the
past. A notable example was eventually thwarted by a guy--a
President, if you will--named Abe Lincoln. I wrote a rather blunt
letter to Judge Stanley Sporkin several years ago about the same
basic issues involved with the DOJ, et al. Some of the cast-culprits
from the competition have changed or been added, but their motives
and behavior are just as scum-bag-greedy as ever! Here it is below,
for your edification, entertainment and hopeful enlightenment:
(Note: I no longer live at the address shown in the letter. My
current address is: 14424 North Creek Drive %1126 Mill Creek,
Washington 98012)
March 2,1995
U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin
The District Court for the District of Columbia
United States Court House
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Judge Sporkin:
I am just a simple carpenter.
Perhaps you will help renew my faith in humanity and find it in
your heart to take a little time to pay attention to a nobody like
me. After all, you probably spend most of your day listening to
lawyers--and I'll bet that my views are much more honest and fun. (I
must admit that, thirty-some years ago, I gave only slightly more
than a passing fancy to the notion that I might want to go to law
school myself.) (I looked around at the company I'd be keeping and
realized--your honor excepted, of course--that I might soon feel
like Diogenes of Sinope--but picture him standing stark-naked on a
miniscule ice floe floating in the Arctic Ocean in mid-December and
having had F. Lee Bailey skip blithely across the water and r-r-r-r-
r-r-r-rip his lantern from his hand, then trying to cover the faint
flicker of his tiny now-substituting candle flame in the midst of an
horrendous, howling, horrible, hailing, raging, ravaging, roaring,
fierce, ferocious, furious, snowing, sleeting, multifyingly savage
storm!--rather than living his ideal, natural life of sitting in a
tub and occasionally venturing-out, searching the daylight.) Whew!
Dat be de long sentence. It's with considerable interest that I've
been reading a great deal about your recent involvement in the
Microsoft anti-trust maybe/maybe not settlement. In addition to
actually working for a living--I eagerly await a brief lay-off
ending work-call from my union, Carpenters' Local 131, at this very
moment--I've used microcomputers, at home and in several workplace
situations, since the early Eighties.
And, I'm writing to you, Judge Sporkin, because I simply cannot
believe that virtually all the press reports I've read have
misquoted you and misunderstood you. (It is kinda nifty to read our
local press folks. I am a Seattle Times subscriber and get exposed
to excellent reporting from the likes of Steve Dunphy and Paul
Andrews, fairly good reporting from Michele Matassa Flores--plus
awful, inane, and inept garbage from our very own version of what
can best be described as ``Clueless in Seattle'', O. Casey Corr.
This nincompoop has just got to be the publisher's nephew or
something!)
I read Hard Drive back when it was hot off the presses. Most of
the personal and business behavior described in the Wallace/Erickson
book seems nasty. It also seems pretty typical. The authors indicate
that Bill Gates does not possess even the most basic or fundamental
sense of ethics--whether it's having sex ``with the wife of one of
Osborne Computer's overseas executives'' or stealing trade secrets
from guileless prospective acquisition partners who've told Gates,
or his confederates, too much. It may be that some of those stories
are actually true hey, stranger things have happened! It may be
that, at worst, Bill Gates is essentially amoral. Or, at best, he
may be brash, arrogant, slick, sneaky, heavy-handed, and business-
brutal. So fucking what? (Remember, I'm an unsophisticated
tradesman. You will please excuse my lack of knowledge regarding
proper judge-letter decorum. Throughout, I intend no disrespect to
you or your institution.) (I must admit here that I would direct my
personal admiration toward the likes of Arthur Ashe--I hope you've
read his last book--rather than Bill Gates. And, perhaps, someday
Gates will develop Ashe-like aspirations? Hope springs . . .)
What's the point of all this corporation meddling/oversight?
Whimpy-assed also-rans and potential once-weres from their own silly
ignorance and stupidity? Is it to protect some What IS Microsoft's
competition doing? You know, Judge, it's almost as though all these
wonderful, mega-bucks, ersatz business `giants'--the CEOs at Apple,
IBM, Motorola, Borland, Novell, and now, today, America Online,
CompuServe, and Prodigy, decided to get together in a big circle and
created some weird new-age ritual wherein they watched each other
cut off their own balls! What a bunch of prissy little twits! Take a
look at the marketplace. Really take a look. I mean, never mind
those whining little suck-butts who have poor market savvy. Let me
give you my own anecdotal example--it's pretty straight-forward:
1. I recently ordered, on February 17th, a Micron P100PCI
Millennia PC. Micron, also an exceptionally talented company, has
some sort of an agreement with Microsoft which provides Micron with
Microsoft Office Professional 4.3/Microsoft Bookshelf on CD-ROM to
bundle with its high-end PCs. I like that. (I would be quite
surprised to learn that
[[Page 25184]]
Micron is a Reback silent partner--quite surprised, indeed.)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please understand, that if I choose, I may
completely ignore ALL the software on my new computer, write all my
own code using a wide variety of computer languages and operating
systems on different sectors of my one-gigabyte hard drive, and
develop any utility or application programs I dream up. My machine
is fundamentally nothing more than a mass of potentially incredibly
well-coordinated electronic impulses, just chomping at the bit,
waiting for me to provide it with lucid instructions. This machine
makes no demands on me, but offers me the tacit agreement that it
will dance all over itself with zero/one delightfulness once I give
it the proper zeros and ones. Hence, GIGO. (And this garbage-in-
garbage-out concept could apply to lawsuits too--ya know what I
mean, Verne?) We could get real anthropomorphic about it, but, it is
just a fancy box of wires and wafers. So, what's left for me to do
is to look around for some entity to take the aforementioned
potential, and direct it better than I. N'est pas?
2. If you'd followed the development of PC software and hardware
more closely, you would understand that this is a company,
Microsoft, which produces excellent products--at a very reasonable
price, with exceptional features which enable users to make very
efficient use of their time and energy. (You'll notice that I didn't
say ``perfect'' products, or even the ``best'' products. We have yet
to see those--and it may not be Microsoft providing them!
3. Suppose I decide that I want to switch to Novell's
PerfectOffice Professional software. I would run out to Egghead
Software and buy it for $550. That's a lot of money. But, when you
look at most businesses--even quite small home businesses--that
amount of money isn't going to make or break you. And, now you'd own
both sets of office software! (You could do the same thing with
Lotus SmartSuite for $460.)
4. You could buy an Apple computer with an entirely different
operating system, along with its own pretty handy software. Millions
have. Why haven't millions more?
5. The number of software companies is growing remarkably fast,
NOT SHRINKING--to a great extent because of Microsoft's enormous
success and its continuing efforts to generate greater interest and
involvement with personal computers. The old ``bandwagon effect:''
6. Is the world rushing to IBM and their operating system, O/S 2
Warp? Why not? Could you, Judge Stanley Sporkin, decide to write
your very own operating system, market it, and make tons of moolah?
You, if you really know what you're doing, bet your sweet behind you
could! SO, WHERE'S THE MONOPOLY? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
And all this crap about ``vaporware'' and the ``smoking gun''.
Gimme a break. Microsoft lawyers lied to you? Do lawyers lie? Do
bears dump ordure in the woods? You see, it isn't just the knowledge
that ALL software companies--and most hardware companies, like maybe
IBM, (surely, in my humble opinion, one of lawyer Reback's clients),
have been doing this ``vapor'' stuff for forty years or more. By the
way, so have the car makers, appliance companies, chemical
companies, etc.
This is a very complex and challenging world into which you've
fallen. The players inventors, developers, publishers,
manufacturers, and customers--form a group unlike any you've ever
imagined. The level of sophistication may be higher, especially that
of the customers, than any other single societal element. And this
fact is very important--even critical to you and your task. My hope
is that you have some sort of ``warp-speed'' learning curve, since I
don't believe, frankly, that you really know what's happening here.
You have got to be damned sure that you are looking at victims.
Hey, help me out here. Is it possible that you may be thinking
about putting some Rehnquist-like gold bands around your robes or
something? I mean, I've picked-up this thing and perused it for
years, from inside and out, top and bottom, at every imagined angle.
I've squinted at it with a tilt, a lilt, and felt its temperature in
all sorts of weather--and, mixing metaphors with complete abandon,
you still look like a wild-ass bull in a fragile china shop to me.
Historically, the real damage done to society and our
environments--both natural and competitive--has been visited upon us
when large businesses or governmental agencies have colluded, not
faced-off. (Oil companies, meat packers, railroads, the literally
criminal behavior of General Motors and Standard Oil as they
conspired to eliminate the trolley-car system in L.A., the Bay of
Pigs fiasco, the Vietnam War, (I served in the 7th Special Forces
Group and the 82d Abn. Div. from '61--'64, and have some first-hand
knowledge of how and what our government did secretly--like Special
Forces psych-warfare and sabotage teams operating, clandestinely, in
North Vietnam during the late '50s and early `60s and the subsequent
huge increase in manpower allocations following President Kennedy's
visit to Fort Bragg and his viewing of our razzle-dazzle ``sneaky
pete'' demonstrations--jet-pack-flying-soldiers bullshit and all.
From your experience with the C.I.A. and the S.E.C., you understand
the fundamental differences between groups-which-do-battle-amongst-
themselves and groups-which-secretly-manipulate,-collude,-and-
cooperate-whilst-publicly-portraying-themselves-as-rivals. The
former may be rough all `round as they behave in classic Darwinian
fashion-- providing more fit survivors. The latter gouges and rapes
citizens and consumers. And denies all of us access to the better
and best which life has to offer.
I'm convinced that you are having much trouble in gaining a
clear picture of the issues involved in this case. (Yeah, I know
that sounds rather smart-ass of me. But just try to consider some of
what I have to say, in an open-minded manner, then worry about tone
later.) Part of your difficulty lies in your lack of exposure to,
and genuine familiarity with, the use and history of PCs and their
software. Hard Drive presents only a small portion of that history,
and it has a very narrow view to boot. Sources are all around you.
Scientific American has followed computers for many years now.
The September '94 issue has an excellent article, ``Software's
Chronic Crisis'', you will find quite valuable. In fact, Scientific
American has computer-related articles in nearly every issue,
including the current March, '95 and many of them deal with business
and software together.
And maybe give some thought to having a talk with people like
George Fisher--who had a totally different approach to some of these
same technology competition issues while he was the CEO at Motorola
several years ago--and former Congressman, Secretary of Defense,
White House Chief of Staff, and an accomplished businessman, Don
Rumsfeld. They are just a couple of the sources available to you to
get a realistic sense of the actual market forces at work.
Lastly, I want to mention, in general, some of the global market
factors involved. As you know, millions of dollars are stolen from
many U.S. software companies every year. Software developers are
using more and more foreign sources for their work all the time. You
run the risk of, once again, killing another American golden-egg-
laying goose. If you want to drive all of Microsoft's operations,
not just some of them, to India, Bulgaria, and who knows where--keep
pounding away. A zippy little reality check shows that Gates could
run his corporation from just about anywhere--all Microsoft
facilities could be re-located to Halmahera, Jabalpur, or even
Kumbukkan, whilst he and his gang of top bananas stroll the halls of
their Puget Sound mansions, occasionally tapping a few keys in
Microsoft Office Professional 4.3 to check-up on things.
What's happened to the American television and electronics
industry? Autos? Book publishing? The point is, if you try to gain
power and fame by bludgeoning world-class American corporations like
Microsoft--in the misguided belief that they have a monopoly--you
may actually provide even more opportunities for far less competent,
ethical, and competitive software providers--and end-up destroying
the enormous good side of our business environment for American
companies. Frankly, foreign companies love the way our courts stomp
on our businesses. (I'm not talking about real concerns like health
and safety rules--I mean the very methods you seem so upset about.
The exclusive license agreements which build powerful ties between
Microsoft and its partners, and even other trade so-called
`questionable' practices.) Let the companies who complain and try to
coerce the Justice Department, move their cause to civil courts with
actual violations of law. Let `em make their case with better
products and prices in the marketplace. Let `em go door-to-door, if
necessary, with excellent products.
A year ago today, I turned fifty. I read Mr. Ashe's book and
felt terrific for it. Today, on my fifty-first birthday, you, you
lucky dog, are the recipient of my efforts at trying to make a
small, positive difference. It may surprise you to learn that I
don't own Microsoft stock, but I know several carpenters who do--
they've done well and acted wisely. I hope you will too.
Sincerely,
William S. Stella
8615 238th Street, S.W., G302
[[Page 25185]]
Edmonds, Washington 98026
(206) 775-0550
P.S. Rest assured that I would certainly enjoy having the
opportunity to meet you or talk with you at any time. If you ever
visit the Seattle area, please give me a call and I'll treat you to
Harry Nagamatsu's Atlantic Street Pizza--``Garlic Gulch'' for sure.
Maybe Willy Windows will join us, and then you can really pummel
him.
P.P.S. Obviously, this is a personal letter. I don't represent
anyone--not my union, Microsoft, the late and great Arthur Ashe--
except simple ol' me.
C.C. Stephen H. Dunphy--Seattle Times Business Columnist Bill
Gates--Microsoft Corporation
MTC-00009666
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Microsoft Settlement. Glad to see an end to the
Clinton era of anti trust lawsuits.
Sincerely, Terry Burnett
Phx, AZ.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009667
From: Bob (038) Caryl Horstmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:17pm
Subject: GOVT. SHAKEDOWN OF MICROSOFT
DEAR WHO EVER AT JUSTICE DEPT;
I BELIEVE THAT MICRO SOFT DOES NOT RATE A SHAKE DOWN BY THE
GOVT. JUST BECAUSE MICROSOFT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SLICK WILLY. THE
REST OF THE WORLD IS WONDERING WHY WE SHAKE DOWN OUR BEST ACHIEVERS.
ROBERT HORSTMEIER, 112 STANTON STREET, DAVIS ILLINOIS, 61019-
0183
[email protected]
MTC-00009668
From: brede
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the States and the Justice Dept should leave Microsoft
alone. What a bunch of envious second rate people you've become.
Hatred of the good for being good is not an American ideal an
longer.
Eternal Vigilance,
Lorelei Brede
MTC-00009669
From: Thomas LaRusso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:38pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
THE REMEDY THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSED SHOULD BE SETTLED ON. NO
FURTHER STATE ACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
TOM LARUSSO
MTC-00009670
From: Dale Fester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ: I support the settlement, even though I feel it is unfair
to Microsoft. I feel that Microsoft has never been a problem for
consumers. It is my belief that they have been tough competitors,
but that is what free enterprise is all about. The Justice
Department should never have taken the side of the losing
competitors. I believe it was the DOJ, Sun Microsystems, Netscape,
and the predudicial judge who were responsible for starting the
economy into its downturn. I certainly don't thank you for that! The
complaining states should be sent packing. All they are interested
in is trying to get money from Microsoft, who has in no way hurt
consumers. I thank Microsoft for an excellent product that they
market for a fair price. If it hadn't been for Microsoft developing
a universal software for us computer users, we would be in a lot of
trouble trying to link across an innumberable variety of computer
operating systems. Leave them alone. When I worked for a large
aerospace company, we were always trying to beat the others and we
had no love or compassion for them. That's the definition of free
enterprise, which is based on survival of the best competitors.
Dale Fester
2916 South Fenton St.
Denver, Colorado 80227
Tel: 303-985-5678
MTC-00009671
From: Carol Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:50pm
Subject: microsoft anti-trust suit
TO: US Dept of Justice
From: Carol C. Adams
Atlanta, GA
Please close the case against Microsoft and therefore end the
abuse of our anti trust laws. Microsoft is a fine competative
company that is successful and should be a model for other emerging
companies.
Yours truly,
Carol Adams
MTC-00009672
From: cphatcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft trial has squandered taxpayers' dollars. It is
high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Competition should be in the marketplace not the
courtroom. Competition means creating better goods and offering
superior services to consumers. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. This whole mess is the result
of the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors.
Now that the federal government and nine states have finally
reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the
reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. It's time to
put this to rest.
This settlement is tough, but seems reasonable and fair to all
parties involved. I agree this settlement is good for them, the
industry and the American economy. I support the Microsoft
settlement.
Clarence Hatcher
3268 F 3/10 Road
Clifton, CO 81520
MTC-00009673
From: Clark Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:52pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Case
There is no way DOJ can prove consumers are worse off due to
Microsoft's actions. Maybe their competitors are worse off, but that
is the nature of business. Personal computer use soared in this
country due to standardization, and that standardization is due to
the success of Microsoft's products. Please stop wasting our tax
dollars with the pursuit of Microsoft, there are much better uses of
these dollars than frivolous litigation.
MTC-00009674
From: Wanda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I support settling the Microsoft case. I think it would be in
the best interests of the public to do so. I do think, however, that
Bill Gates abused his company's position by creating software that
requires everything to be built on it's base and holding smaller
companies hostage by requiring them to use Microsoft's products in
order to market their own.
Wanda Simonson
MTC-00009675
From: rosalie mcGhie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:58pm
Subject: microsoft comment
MTC-00009676
From: Merle Steffenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm sure getting tired of reading and hearing about this! Let's
quit wasting my tax money and dispose of this case. It looks like
you're running interference for Microsoft's competitors (who, in
many cases, probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for
Microsoft). Get it settled and get the holdout states in line. I'm
from Iowa and I'm ashamed to see the AG trying to get into
Microsoft's pockets. Get more from the Web.
MTC-00009677
From: Harry Crowell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe the U S economy has suffered enough with this wasteful
and foolish witchunt of a series of expensive lawsuits. Please stop
harming our fragile economy. All this lawsuit mess is doing is
creating a lot of wealth for a bunch of lawyers and for sure it is
not reducing the cost of computing.
MTC-00009678
From: The Fosters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:13pm
Subject: GIVE UP ON microsoft
The settlements already given are enough. Please DUMP the case
as this is only left over
[[Page 25186]]
from Clinton years. Lets get back to helping industry.
Gifford Foster
MTC-00009679
From: Walter B. Mills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Members of the Department of Justice:
If Microsoft is satisfied with the present government judgement
agreed to by nine state attorney generals, then I recommend ending
future litigations. My personal view of this court case against
Microsoft is: ``it never should have happened''! Microsoft
``Windows'' isn't a finished product. The competitors who sought
government protection are simply not competitive.
The American Public is extremely fortunate that Microsoft
invented ``Windows'' before a foreign nation developed it. Billions
of dollars have flowed to America that otherwise could have been
lost. Consumers of Microsoft products have excellent products at
affordable prices thanks to competition the American way. I
certainly do not wish to see Bill Gates and his company penalized
for producing better products (a better mouse trap as the old saying
goes).
As a consumer of Microsoft products, I have not been overcharged
as might happen with a monopoly. However, I have lost financially
when Microsoft stock prices dropped severely due to this court case.
Do not penalize Microsoft for success. Encourage the competition
to do better! The government must not dictate to Microsoft how to
design computer software. That would be a disaster and America would
lose it's inventive edge!
Respectfully,
Walter B. Mills
20070 Park Ridge Lane
Sedro Woolley, WA 98284-7601
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00009680
From: Douglas Matheson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:20pm
Subject: judgement
I happen to use Microsoft products for the Macintosh. I like
them, but I can't stand the grassroots propaganda the MS uses to get
their way. They were wrong in the way they conducted business for
the last 15 years (at least). Don't let them give software, make
them give real dollars and let the receivers decide where to spend
it.
Douglas W. Matheson Ph.D
Dept. of Psychology
University of the Pacific
Stockton, CA USA
MTC-00009681
From: Billy Colwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box 35
Roxton, Texas 75477
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing this letter to you today to express to you my
sincere delight at the resolution of the long drawn out antitrust
lawsuit filed against Microsoft. The resolution that was reached is
a long overdue end to this debacle. Terms of this settlement are
quite extensive and cover every parties needs, I believe. For the
competitor software companies, there are provisions that give them
access to the interface information so that their software can work
more smoothly in Microsoft's Windows operating system. For the
computer manufacturers, there are provisions that would prevent
Microsoft from retaliating against them should they promote software
from Microsoft's competitors. For the consumers, there are
provisions that stimulate competition, which subsequently keeps
prices down. There is no part that this settlement does not cover;
it truly is all encompassing. There is no reason to litigate this
further. A settlement has been reached, and its time to let this
issue rest. I hope you will hear the opinion of people like me and
agree to the settlement that was reached. I thank you for your time
today.
Sincerely,
Billy Colwell
MTC-00009682
From: Richard Gillmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The terms proposed are tough but fair. It's time to settle this
case and let American business get back to doing what it does best--
making the best products in the world.
Richard Gillmann
4150--187th Ave SE
Issaquah, WA 98027 (USA)
(425)641-5136
http://www.nwlink.com/rxg/
[email protected]
-or-
[email protected]
MTC-00009683
From: H. Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:43pm
Subject: Justice Department Members: I believe that it is past time
to end the Clinton era Anti-trust law
Justice Department Members: I believe that it is past time to
end the Clinton era Anti-trust law abuse. It is a sad state of
affairs when men and women aren't allowed to achieve what they are
able to achieve legally because someone who isn't able to achieve as
much yells``foul''. I'm tired of all these petty lawsuits that make
lawyers wealthy and naturally competitive persons want to give up on
the American dream of making wealth through hard work and ingenuity.
This is the kind of thing that will bring America down if allowed to
continue. PLEASE, PUT A STOP TO IT!
Helen Hoffman
4805 Serena Court.
Carmichael, Ca. 95608-4240
MTC-00009684
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Let me first note that I am a longtime Microsoft (MS) product
user. I started with Apple, played with Unix and LINUX and naturally
gravitated to the MS platform due to business needs and
productivity.
I preface this so as you know that when I am writing you today
to voice my support for the settlement that was reached on November
6, 2001, between MS and the government, you represent, my request
and opinion is based not on pure emotion but on experience.
Productivity is the issue. MS provides it. You (the court,
politicians, special interests and unsuccessful competitors) have
conspired to come against MS, each for your own reasons. If the
competitors had as good a product as MS, they would be where MS is
and not seeking to steal their profits or destroy MS by use of
greedy and unethical lawyers. Netscape Navigator is a perfect
example of this. If it wasn't prone to crashing, I would probably
still be using Netscape today. I discontinued using it several years
ago due to its unreliability factor.
Lest you think me bias, may I acknowlege that I have and am
still using several third party products (both software and
hardware) on top of the MS platform without conflict or bugs. So,
again, where is the problem? Where is this monopoly that MS is
supposed to have? As an American consumer I can still pick and
choose to acquire the software that I desire. Yes, I may have to
initiate contact or search for a separate vender to acquire
something made by MS but doesn't have the features that I desire,
but you and I do that every day when we buy groceries or other
products. One store may not have the cookies I like, so although
they may have several different types of cookies on hand, I will
make my purchases there and on the way home stop off at another
store that has the cookies I like. And if the first store is giving
away their cookies free with, say, the purchase of milk, fine, but
I'm not prevented from going to the other store on my way home and
buying the cookies I like. It just means that I now have two
cookies. One I will eat and the other thrown away or given to the
dog.
I like many in America do not understand your ``Monopoly''
issue. It doesn't exist as far as I can see. What exists is
political greed and lack of moral character. The politicians found
that they could gain some extra cash (it would be called extortion
or racketeering if it were done by the common man) and votes by
pretending to support the little guy. It always looks good when you
have stand up for the little guy and slap down the ``rich''
capitalist. It's the mentality we suffer with these days because the
government has taught us all to be victims. How better to succeed,
by everybody having nothing. We all share the same misery. It's
killing America, not only business but also the social structure and
fabric of this great country. The courts/lawyers jumped into the
fray, because that's what vultures do. They prey on the vulnerable.
Mr. Gates and MS were going about their business. Clinton and
[[Page 25187]]
his cronies were not getting political kick backs from this ingrate.
Seagate was a friend and made huge contributions. They, however,
were being beaten up in the marketplace by someone who was producing
a better product and marketing it better. Clinton was having his own
problems and saw an opportunity to deflect a little heat and pay
back a political debt. And, Viola! Enter the courts.
Besides who stands to profit. Look at the huge sums that are
being collected by both the prosecution and defense attorneys. In
the end, its the litigation attorneys who will walk away from this
with their pockets full. The consumer will again suffer the
disadvantage by paying more for less. MS will have to put the breaks
on innovation, which in their industry may be the death knell.
This case was political from the beginning. It's time to settle
this thing. The offers have been made and accepted, except by a few
greedy State Attorneys. Let them go back to their casinos and
constituent for their State's needs. Leave Microsoft alone. They and
we the consumer do not owe them a thing. Because they have increased
their state's spending by 63% (according to America Legislative
Exchange Council) over the decade of the 90's is not Microsoft's
fault. These local politicians need to either cut spending or seek
the deficiencies from their own constituencies. They should not seek
to balance their budgets upon the back of MS. MS sells a good
product. Do not punish them further with this injustice.
You have exacted the penalty. Microsoft is willing to suffer the
``penalty''. Let them get back to what they do. Making a quality
product that puts productivity in American business which has put us
ahead of the world. To further delay or seek greater damages is only
to deter and prolong the injustice. The US court was out to find a
scapegoat for a previous administration. That administration is now
gone. The court is supposed to be a separate branch of the
government, not a Brown Shirt for the Executive Branch. This case
should have never come before the courts. Accept this settlement as
is and clear your calendar for real crimes and criminals. Thank you
for suffering through this diatribe, but may I state for the record
that I support this settlement and believe it will have a broad
positive impact on the state of our economy at the present time.
Sincerely,
Patric J. Jewison
a registered voter from Billings, Montana
MTC-00009685
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I believe microsoft has done nothing wrong to warrant punishment
by DOJ. They have simply been fierce competitors in a business where
there are many options for those using computers in areas where
microsoft leads. They could lose their lead at any time. DOJ would
do well to focus on real problems in this country and Bill Gates is
not one of them.
Nancy Prestopino
MTC-00009686
From: Cosmo S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
I urge you to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse aimed at
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Cosmo Stallone
MTC-00009687
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
Please settle the Microsoft case. It is in the public interest
to do so!!! If this continues only the lawyers will win.
Grace Harris
234 East Rocks Road
Norwalk, CT 06851
MTC-00009688
From: John (038) Marty Trueblood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:34pm
Subject: Micro-soft Settlement
I believe that the Anti-Trust Suit against Micro-soft should end
now, today. Competition is necessary and should be the challenge,
not the call to punish a successful company. It is time for all to
let go of this unfair law suit and to let the other Companies get on
with their business, develop better products and compete in the open
market.
John A. Trueblood
8916 196 th. Street
McAlpin, Florida 32062
(386) 364-5316
MTC-00009689
From: Sandi Wilke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 9:36pm
Please end the trial against Microsoft. The settlement is good.
Let's get on with America and free enterprise. Let Americans spend
their money the way they feel is best for them.
Thank you.
[email protected]
MTC-00009690
From: tomkeplar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 7:50pm
Subject: Drop the Microsoft case
I believe the Justice Dept. should make the Microsoft case
disappear. We are all free to choose our computer items. Let it be a
thing of the past. There is so many terrible things that are going
on, so look to the future. For one, the environmental groups,
Sierra, Friends, Greens, etc are all trying to take over the plant,
it is time to investigate their expensive offices and things they
use their money for. I sort of believe they are UN-American.
MTC-00009692
From: Lynn Handy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Do not remove Java from Windows--there are many valuable
websites that depend on this programming to provide their services.
One such site is wetbusters.com, which provides a valuable source of
support and info to children and adults with enuresis--I know of now
other such site available, and as a health care provider, I need to
be sure my patients can have ongoing access to this superb support
site.
Thank you.
Lynn Handy, ARNP
MTC-00009693
From: Benjam(00ED)n Mu(00F1)oz Mateu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00009694
From: Lyn Monahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00009695
From: Charles Lyons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:48pm
Subject: Anti-trust NO!
The time has come for DOJ to put a merciful end to the Clinton-
era attack on one of the most successful companies in the long
history of the United States. In America's fight for survival of a
free system of government against a system of terrorism, we need
strong and innovative organizations dedicated to communicating the
message of freedom to peoples around the world.
Charles E. Lyons
MTC-00009696
From: slclark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Issue
Good Morning--
Please in the interests of the citizens of our great country
drop the case against Microsoft. It has been dragging on for the
last several years and is costing the tax payer many millions of
dollars and really making a mess of the economy while making the
lawyers very rich.
Have a good day,
(Mr & Mrs) Sharon L & Joyce M Clark
CC:slclark
MTC-00009697
From: slclark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Issue
Good Morning--
Please in the interests of the citizens of our great country
drop the case against Microsoft. It has been dragging on for the
last several years and is costing the tax payer many millions of
dollars and really making a mess of the economy while making the
lawyers very rich.
Have a good day,
(Mr & Mrs) Sharon L & Joyce M Clark
CC:slclark
MTC-00009698
From: Francois Vincent
[[Page 25188]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
1-MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested in
porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either in
form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with
Windows users.
2--The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
3--The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
4--The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
What Microsoft did and still does doesn't respect at all the
freedom of expression that USA defends. People have the right to
know that exists other Operating System than Windows and to choose
which one is better.
Thank you very much and I hope that justice will be made.
Francois Vincent
www.bug-mg.org
MTC-00009699
From: Sandy Alto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:23pm
Subject: PLEASE GET OFF MICROSOFT'S BACK!
It's utterly insane that a bunch of state governments are
allowed to play politics in this economy with technology companies.
Microsoft is not a monopoly, creates outstanding products that have
made my life incredibly better and easier, AND WILDLY ECONOMICAL.
Technology advances must be made for our economy to grow. We
need to leave Microsoft alone and let them compete in the
marketplace as they have in the past. The best company that offers
the best service will win, but with so many needs that have to be
met, it's unlikely that one company will ever be able to be all
things to all consumers.
Stop trying to regulate this industry by penalizing Microsoft.
Let the marketplace drive demand, service, and quality.
Thank you,
Sandra Alto
19012 90th Pl. N.E.
Bothell, WA 98011
MTC-00009700
From: Tom (038) Carolyn Burke
To: US Dept of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments
Date: 1/8/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Settlement
This is not punishment for breaking a law it is a reward. This
``settlement'' is a terrible, terrible dis-service to the American
people. This settlement allows microsoft to further their
monopolistic ways in a most insidious way by allowing them greater
access to our most valuable assets, our children. Further, it shows
our children that breaking laws will be rewarded, rather than
punished, by our highest courts. How can this be justice? How will
our children be able to determine right from wrong when the wrong-
doers are rewarded and not truly punished? This is one of the worlds
greatest travesties of justice of all times! Please there must be
some way to control this great corporation that will show them that
they too are subject to the rules and regulations of our great
country.
Carolyn Burke,
[email protected]
MTC-00009701
From: Marion Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:26pm
Subject: stop abuse
Please stop abusing a hard-working enterpreneur for his success!
Marlene Parker
1901 N. Thompson St.
Conroe TX 77301-1241
[email protected]
936-441-7503
MTC-00009702
From: Tom O'Hern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 11:35pm
Subject: A slap on the hand is not enough
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of Seattle I find my self very close to the root
of the problem with the case of Microsoft. I am very involved in the
computer industry and have for the last 15 years spent a good deal
of time watching Microsoft. I have watched first hand in the
industry how Microsoft has gained the upper hand not by producing a
superior product but by buying out competitors and using the legal
system to drain their rivals.
In the computer industry there are many competing products. I
have found though, that preferential treatment is given to Microsoft
products. Why? Even though IT managers know that other products are
superior/compatible/cheaper it would be insane to go any other route
because Microsoft will put an end to that copetition sooner or later
and anyone who has built a business on those other products will
have to pay absurd amounts of money to switch over their entire
division.
You might think Microsoft would do well to incorporate those
ideas in to their own products but they rarely do. They know what
power they have and the corporation has become an entity of its own.
It answers to stock holders and board members (who usually have
their hands in MS's pockets more than the stockholders), not to
ethical practices.
I could go on but I am sure there are many others that will in
my place. Many people are speaking out but with out *their*
governments backing no justice will be served. Free trade must be
established. A simple slap on Microsoft's hand will not achieve
anything. At the least the company must be broken up. Please.
Tom O'Hern
[email protected]
3415 NW 71st St.
Seattle, WA 98117
206-782-2820
MTC-00009703
From: Jon Fulfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jon Fulfer
24 Indian Trail
Lake Dallas, Texas 75065
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am absolutely opposed to having the Microsoft Corporation
broken up, and I am worried that if the litigation against them is
carried any further, that is exactly what may happen. As you know, a
resolution was finally reached last fall in regards to this issue.
It was a resolution that should please all parties, and there is no
reason to pursue this issue any further. The provisions within this
settlement provide the smaller software companies with protection
from Microsoft. They have pricing guarantees, retaliation
protection, contractual restrictions, and the list goes on. The
resolution as it now stands is as restrictive as can be without
preventing competition, which is basic to our economy.
The next step in further litigation can only be the breakup of
one of the pioneers in the information technology era. This would
absolutely devastating, and I do not want to see it happen. Do not
alter the settlement; leave it as is.
Sincerely,
Jon Fulfer
cc: Representative Richard Armey
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009704
From: Carlos Santellanes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:01am
Subject: Justice please
In late 1998 and early 1999, the United States District Court
found that Microsoft had violated both sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act. Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of
Microsoft's monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost
options in the purchase of new computers, so that the user who does
not wish to purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that
for the price differential between a new computer with Microsoft
software and one without, a computer seller must offer the software
without the computer (which would prevent computer makers from
saying that the difference in price is only a few dollars). Only
then could competition come to exist in a meaningful way. The
specifications of Microsoft's present and future document file
formats must be made public, so that documents created in Microsoft
applications may be read by programs from other makers,
[[Page 25189]]
on Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications for Windows
operating systems), which is already part of the proposed
settlement.
Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent
Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet. It is
crucial that Microsoft's operating system monopoly not be extended,
and in this I quote the study released a year ago by the highly
respected Center for Strategic and International Studies, which
pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually poses a
national security risk. In closing, I say that all are surely in
agreement that the resolution of this case is of great importance,
not just now but for many years to come. This suggests a careful and
deliberate penalty is far more important to the health of the nation
than is a hasty one.
End Note:
The recent attempt by Microsoft to Hijack the penalty phase of
this court proceedings shouldn't be allowed to stand a minute of
contemplation, the remedy must be fair and blind to partisanship. By
giving into the Microsoft remedy you would be basically giving the
'Hen house to the wolves'. By Flooding the educational market with
'FREE' Microsoft products would only serve to fatten an already fat
giant. I beg you to please impose REAL punishment onto the REAL
criminals of this case. Anything else would be punishing the
unprotected and innocent buying public.
Sincerely,
Carlos Santellanes
Los Angeles, California
[email protected]
MTC-00009705
From: Anatoly Volynets
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:00am
Subject: Monopoly hearts!
To:
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530;
From: Anatoly Volynets
1121 Village Dr. #9
Belmont, CA 94002
Dear Renata Hesse:
I would like to make some comments on Microsoft case.
1. I came in US from the former USSR. It is my understanding
that communist country is that one of absolute monopoly in all areas
of our life: culture, industry, media, education, etc. I feel ``by
skin'' all humiliative impact of monopoly on ``small'' people. I
also understand how monopoly slows down any progress in a society,
how badly it affects science, technology, education, health care,
everything. That is why US antitrust laws make me personally happy.
It may sound funny, but I do feel this way. So my opinion in general
is following: any monopoly must be fought and limited AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE for people, society and country sake.
2. One may say that some monopolists do not behave badly, do not
really harm public, are honest in their attitude toward people and
state, produce goods and services of high quality, keep fair prices,
create jobs, represent economic power of the country, etc. Maybe
such monopolists do exist, but this is not about Microsoft
Corporation. Whatever I know about their products and conduct is of
the worst quality and impact possible. They always were the same as
they are exposed in the movie ``Pirates of Silicon Valley''.
Consider just one issue: security holes in Windows OS and Windows
based applications caused and entirely responsible for the
``crackerism'' as such. All world wide spread viruses exploit
Windows weak points.
3. I cannot understand how the proposed settlement may solve
problems caused by Microsoft activities. So I came out with my own
proposition.
4. I am not a lawyer so my propositions may not be 100%
legitimate, but I developed them based on my general knowledge. Once
again, people, society and country always benefit from competition
and suffer from monopoly. This is true in general terms and nothing
tells us against this in particular Microsoft case.
5. So I believe, the only considerable results in the case may
be achieved by breaking Microsoft. I do not thing it will work if we
break it in 2. OS developing company has no reason to compete with
Application developing company. I thing it must be divided at least
by 12:
2 OS developers,
2 Office application developers,
2 Internet application developers
2 Media application developers
2 ISP providers
2 ASP providers, so that the least competition occurred within each
pair.
I do not know if such action be enough regarding financial means
accumulated by Microsoft so far.
5. Looking into situation on market I think it would be
necessary to apply additional taxation on all Windows related
products and services, including education. Additional taxes should
be used to create public funds to support competition, especially
Free Software development.
6. Addressing low quality of MS products and dangerous security
issues, their products and services must be treated the same way as
tobacco ones: No advertisement allowed; Each product and service
must be labeled accordingly by independent experts, to let people
know what they pay for.
7. Addressing Microsoft's past monopoly power abuses, there must
be heavy financial penalties applied, and collected funds to be used
to support Free Software development.
Sincerely,
Anatoly Volynets
MTC-00009706
From: Charles Preacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The suit should be settled. It should not have been filed in the
first place. Bill Gates might be a nerd, but he is a genius nerd.
The technological developments ue has masterminded are among the
most significant the world has ever seen. Leave him and Microsoft
alone.
Charles B. Preacher
MTC-00009707
From: Doug Siebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to submit my comments on the proposed settlement
between the US DOJ and Microsoft. My name is Douglas Siebert, I am
an independant consultant who does enterprise computing work, and
have been a professional in the field for ten years. I hold a
Masters in Computer Science in addition to an MBA from the
University of Iowa. I feel that I have a much greater understanding
of these matters than most people from a technical perspective, and
have been in the field for a long enough time that I know the
history behind all the various aspects of the case.
I have followed the case with great interest as I have become
more and more concerned over the years about Microsoft's domination
of the industry, and its negative effects. The explosive growth of
the industry and its resultant effect on the economy has allowed
Microsoft's abuses to go on for far too long. I think a lot of
people had a ``if it ain't broke don't fix it'' attitude about this.
While I can understand that, I think the industry would even more
strong, creative and dynamic if Microsoft did not hold such a
totally dominant position over such a large and ever increasing
portion of it.
I feel the proposed settlement is totally inadequate. It does
not punish Microsoft at all for its past abuses, nor is there any
real change put into force to either prevent them from future abuses
or make it more attractive financially or legally to avoid these
abuses on its own. The US Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that
Microsoft is a monopoly, and has stated the remedy for their illegal
conduct in maintaining this monopoly must ``seek to `unfetter (the)
market from anticompetitive conduct,' ... to `terminate the illegal
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to
result in monopolization in the future.''' As it does none of these
things, it must be scrapped, and unless a far stronger deal can be
struck, I feel the Court must direct the proceedings to continue.
The DOJ has entered into deals with Microsoft before, and the
result was a larger and stronger monopoly, with monopoly profits
accorded to its top officers as a reward for their illegal and
unethical behavior. This remedy will be equally ineffective, with
loopholes to strengthen Microsoft's position riddling the terms. As
a simple example, the requirement for Microsoft to disclose its APIs
allows them an out for anything relating to security (in today's
Internet, nearly anything can be determined to be security critical,
and if not it can be altered so that it is) It also allows Microsoft
to only disclose these APIs to companies whom Microsoft deems as
having a ``viable business plan''. Nevermind
[[Page 25190]]
possible abuses of this in connection with for-profit companies
having financial difficulties, it is an out for them in connection
with their only real competition in the operating system market
today, so-called ``open source'' systems such as Linux. Since their
works are essentially in the public domain, Microsoft obviously
crafted this requirement as a way to prevent giving the critical API
information to what they feel is the biggest threat to their current
monopoly.
The nine states (including my home state of Iowa) who have
intelligently declined to be a part of this one-sided settlement
have proposed a somewhat modified version. While better, that
version is still missing some key aspects of the picture. The
requirement to make source code for Microsoft's Internet Explorer
browser will obviously be a deal killer from Microsoft's
perspective. The taking of their intellectual property is something
the Court is likely to be loathe to do as well. But the worst thing
about this is that it wouldn't really do anything substantial as far
as changing the competitive landscape. It would certainly be more
than a slap on the wrist to Microsoft, and something that may give
them pause before they continue on to future abuses of their
monopoly, but it is not particulary constructive.
However, I do not wish to simply criticize the settlement. I do
have some suggestions for a remedy I'd like to see considered in
whole or in part. I have noted my reasoning behind these points as
well.
1) Disallow Microsoft from the purchase of or investment in any
new companies. Microsoft has historically used its monopoly profits
as a way of extending its monopoly by buying out the competition to
kill it or integrate it into their product portfolios. They have
lately been using strategic investments with their huge cash reserve
to take equity positions in other companies, as a way to push their
technology onto these companies when they otherwise would not have
freely chosen it.
2) Disallow Microsoft from entering into any new exclusive
licensing deals with any companies or individuals for any of their
products or intellectual property. This would prevent them from one
of their favorite avenues for further abuses, since anything
Microsoft licensed would still be available to others to license as
well and use to compete fairly with Microsoft in the marketplace.
3) Make all deals, contracts, etc. Microsoft enters into a
matter of public record. In addition, any existing deals would have
to be entered into the public record within a reasonable period of
time after the final judgement is made. This would give Microsoft
(or those who have entered into deals or contracts with them) an
opportunity to extricate themselves from any deals they would rather
not have publicly disclosed for any reason.
4) Require Microsoft to disclose all APIs, network protocols,
file formats, etc. for all its software in any market where they
have more than 50% share. This would extend to any new markets where
they currently don't have 50% share if they achieve it during the
lifetime of the settlement's terms. These APIs would be made freely
available in the public domain with no restriction on their use. All
required information must be available before any product using them
is available for retail sale or for preinstallation by its OEM
partners. In addition, any changes to these APIs caused by changes
to its software due to patches, fixes, service packs and such would
also need to be disclosed prior to the release of said fixes. The
only exception would be for critical security fixes, due to the
timeliness requirement for these fixes, that Microsoft be allowed
two weeks after the release of these fixes before disclosure is
required. This is the biggest change as far as potentially restoring
competition to the marketplace. Armed with the ability to
interoperate with Microsoft software in a 100% compatible way,
competition would spring up in many places, both from commercial
competitors as well as ``open source'' freely available programs.
The marketplace could freely choose based on features, price,
support, etc. without the current worries that Microsoft will make
changes that will render the software inoperable with Microsoft's
overnight. Microsoft's huge size and vast army of employees would
still give them a sizeable advantage, but if nothing else, having to
compete fairly would cause Microsoft to put its resources back
towards giving consumers what they want, rather than what Microsoft
requires in order to insure the continuation of its monopoly.
This solution would be far superior to the nine states' solution
of forcing Microsoft to put their intellectual property in the
public domain (in the form of the source code to their Internet
Explorer browser) since it would create competition across the board
(end user operating systems, server operating systems, Office suite,
Internet browser) rather than possibly only in a narrowly targeted
area. It would also avoid setting a precedent the Court would
probably rather not set. Microsoft would have a much harder time
arguing against the unfairness of a solution that merely puts its
competition on the same footing as them versus the taking of their
property.
Finally, I would like to suggest that the proposed settlement's
terms for the ``compliance committee'' are woefully inadequate. I do
not believe that Microsoft should have any say in the membership of
this committee. Instead, Microsoft should be required to provide
some of the staffing for this committee so they can expedite the
process of locating and securing necessary documents, information,
and access to Microsoft personnel. The committee will have their
hands full monitoring Microsoft's compliance, even if they are not
deliberately obstructed along the way. Having one committee member
coming from Microsoft and another that Microsoft would have to agree
on almost guarantees attempted abuses by Microsoft with attempts to
obstruct the committee's ability to function effectively in its
role.
I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
contribute my thoughts on this, and I hope my comments do receive
serious consideration. I realize that you will probably receive many
thousands of comments on this proposed settlement, and even after
discarding those that are incoherent, profane, or obviously cut-and-
pasted from prepared propaganda from one side or the other you will
still have a large number to read and comprehend. I hope that the
time I have taken in investigating this case and collecting and
writing my thoughts will be rewarded.
Douglas Siebert
712 Rundell St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Douglas Siebert [email protected]
MTC-00009708
From: Ralph Kemperdick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:53am
Subject: Microsoft settelment
MTC-00009709
From: Yaka St.Aise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, as a longtime IT professional, I had many opportunities
to witness and/or be affected by Microsoft peculiar business
practices. It seems of the utmost importance to many players in the
IT industry, as well as for the public interest, that whatever
settlement is offered to Microsoft by the DoJ and the government
strongly emphasizes on remedies to what is the worst effect of
Microsoft strong-arm methods, based on its monopoly, namely:
preventing competition and creativity.
Be Inc. is one of the better examples of how companies that
offer any innovative products on markets under Microsoft influence
are both vulnerable and actively endangered and often put out of
business.
BeOS is a good example of the danger Microsoft presents for
competition and innovation, for it was one of the few commercial
attempts on the ground of Microsoft flagship product, and was led as
well as could be.
Microsoft monopoly is not a question anymore, since the DoJ
established it, and it would be cause for no alarm if Microsoft owed
said monopoly to its hability to offer better, cheaper products to
the market.
But the fact is, it isn't the case, MS products are of lesser
value than many competing products, and the company also leverages
its dominant position to overprice its products. Furthermore, MS
practices tend to harm innovation and competition by spending more
time and money at hampering competitors than actually develop new/
better products and technologies. Every new technology from other
companies that blips on MS radar is either outright bought (often
with the sole intent of preventing its success, and no plans to ever
bring it to the market) or actively discouraged to exist out of MS
influence.
So what is needed now, is to acknowledge the fact that while one
of free market's bigger strength is to foster progress and
innovation through competition, Microsoft has become so powerful
that it now has the weight to negate this strength, and can stop
free market top play its role in the consumer electronics industry.
[[Page 25191]]
Since Microsoft has the power to force its rules to apply to the
industry as a whole, there is little choice but acknowledge it and
turn a de-facto standard into a standard : make Microsoft products
public!
--Microsoft can retain the property of the Windows code and
technology, but it should be made so that third-party companies can
create products Microsoft compatible with or without Microsoft
approval.
--License agreements between Microsoft and users, Microsoft and
resellers or manufacturers should be revised and controlled in the
perspective of fairness.
--Public standards and generally non Microsoft-owned standards
Microsoft claims to be compliant with should be enforced.
--De-facto standards, like Microsoft Office file formats should be
documented and published.
--In the same fashion, source code for dominant technologies from
Microsoft should be published and documented (it doesn't prevent
Microsoft from retaining property of said source code), so to ensure
third party manufacturers and developers can design compatible
products without depending on Microsoft ``goodwill''. This would
also help smaller company to gain rights on ``borrowed'' software...
--All Windows APIs and low-level subsystems should be documented as
well as technologies such as DirectX. The best way to ensure such
documentation is kept full and up to date would be to separate some
software divisions of Microsoft from the core company, as spinoffs,
and have them gain knowledge of the documentation via a third party
organization (funded by Microsoft on a congress-sized allocation?),
comprizing industry actors as well as government experts.
--Give the highest attention to Microsoft business practices in the
future and realistically adapt fines and financial penalties to the
profits of Microsoft (at some point in the Netscape case, penalties
applied to Microsoft where of one million dollars when profits for
the same period wre of eleven million, which led one Microsoft
executive to state Microsoft can afford it.)
Below is an example relation of how the OEM license and other
common business practices of Microsoft can in fact hamper innovation
and competition.
Be Inc is the maker of BeOS, a desktop operating system that
runs on the same personal computers that Windows does.
Be Inc. is going out of business just now, because of Microsoft
``innovation-fostering'' business practices.
There is an initiative led by BeOS users to bring back the BeOS
to the market, as a non-profit software, which tells enough about
the quality of the product.
Yet, this initiative has no hope of success if Microsoft is left
free to conduce anti-competitive business practices as it did up to
this point.
Let me summarize how Microsoft did prevent BeOS from gaining
foot on the market and eventually drove out of business a company
whose products were of undisputed great value. BeOS, like BSD or
Linux can be installed on a given computer alongside with others
operating systems, giving the user the ability to decide what system
to run at the time it starts his/her machine.
Since Microsoft doesn't built said computers, one would assume
that it's out of MS hands to prevent any reseller or OEM to sell
computers ready to run with more than one system installed. The fact
is, Microsoft can do just that, and took the necessary steps to make
sure nothing like BeOS can actually reach the mainstream user.
Microsoft licensing model for its software prevents computers
manufacturers and resellers from installing a non Microsoft boot
manager on computers shipping with an OEM licensed copy of Windows.
The boot manager is the piece of software that allows the user to
select his/her operating system of choice among those installed on
the computer at startup type. MS boot manager is obviously not
designed to accommodate non-MS operating systems...
With margins on personal computers averaging in the 6-12% range,
a difference of a couple hundred dollars on pricing can be the
difference between selling for a profit and selling at loss, which
makes the OEM license mandatory if one wants to sell computers
including Windows. The OEM license allows manufacturers to get any
version of Windows for next-to-nothing compared to the cost of a
stand alone copy of the same software (even at bulk rates). By
virtues of a market dominance reaching to monopoly, not including
Microsoft Windows in your computers is not an option for most
manufacturers.
Furthermore, while the OEM licenses are supposed to be granted
on a per-product basis, it is an established fact that Microsoft
threatened some manufacturers to refuse this license unless they do
ship Windows on every of their machines. That leaves the
manufacturer/reseller with little options. Either go the Windows-
only way, or sell at loss or non-competitive prices. Simple as that.
Since BeOS, contrary to Linux or BSD is the product of a private
company, it depends on the company revenues to exist. Those
revenues, in turn, are based on sales of the operating system and
deals with hardware manufacturers.
For an operating system to gain momentum, it has to be able to
accommodate hardware and applications. Here again, Microsoft proved
able to discourage some software and hardware manufacturers to
support BeOS, less they lose the ``goodwill'' of Microsoft. In the
end, there is no point in developing software or hardware for an
operating system only a few use, unless this platform can gain
momentum and you grow with it, in the hope of becoming a big player.
And only a few, those who were willing and able to install
another system on their computers by themselves, in a market where
every element of the food chain is led to believe and forced to act
as if nothing could exist unless endorsed by Microsoft, did actually
experience how a better, cheaper product may look and feel like.
Best viewed with your glasses.
MTC-00009710
From: Ed A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a computer consultant and programmer for well over
ten years. In that time, I have seen Microsoft become increasingly
more arrogant and unconcerned for the benefit of its customer base,
including consumers and developers.
Instead of competing fairly with its competition, Microsoft has
attempted to use its dominance to force other companies out of
business. An example being Netscape Corporation. While Netscape was
an early innovator in the graphical web browser, Microsoft decided
that it needed to dominate the web browser market. Netscape sold
their Navigator browser for a nominal fee while Microsoft developed
Internet Explorer much after Netscape became the most popular choice
in browsers. Instead of fairly competing with Netscape pricing,
Microsoft gave away their Internet Explorer browser free of charge
with the apparent intention of destroying its competitor's paying
customer base, thus causing serious financial difficulty for
Netscape. This had a detrimental effect for both the consumer and
developer. The consumer was left with no viable choices in a web
browser. Microsoft's intention was to eventually control the
Internet and its related services first by making Internet Explorer
the primary way and only way of accessing the World Wide Web.
Developers experienced problems with Microsoft's non-adherence to
the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards. Creating web pages
was now becoming a frustrating effort, since much of the standard
coding was not compatible with Microsoft's browser. This was also a
detriment to the consumer, since it made it difficult or impossible
to access certain web sites. As the dominance of Internet Explorer
increased, many developers started creating web pages based on
Microsoft's non-standard. The result being that anyone using a
browser other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer was not able to
even access certain web sites.
A related situation is currently occurring with the new
Microsoft XBox game system. I have read that Microsoft looses
approximately $100 for each XBox system they sell. They are
essentially selling at a lose to establish a dominance in this field
with the intention of eventually driving out their competition.
I've seen instances where Microsoft has attempted to discredit a
competitor's existing product with the intention of replacing that
product with their own not yet developed or perfected inferior
alternative. An example being Sun Microsystem's Java programming
language. Microsoft saw that Java had the emerging capability to
become an important language for developing the next generation of
Internet and consumer electronic software applications. Their
response to this was their ActiveX development environment. Due to
blatant security oversights and security problems with ActiveX, Java
became the more popular choice and ActiveX faded away. Microsoft
then attempted to subvert the Java language by creating their own
non-
[[Page 25192]]
standard or unauthorized extensions to the Java language. Their
intention was to ``splinter'' the Java language into many non
compatible versions and essentially dilute its effectiveness as
defacto standard. Since Microsoft now has a dominance with their
browser, the idea was to get the developer to use the Microsoft
unauthorized version of Java for web applications in an attempt to
subvert the Sun Microsystem's version. Even though Microsoft had no
alternative to Java at the time, they attempted to destroy its
usefulness and future potential to the consumer. Microsoft is
currently attempting to promote their new .NET development
environment as an alternative to the Java based applications and
related Sun Microsystems solutions. Their .NET however, is not yet
past the beta or testing stages, but Microsoft has been promoting it
for well over a year. Again, their intention is to use their market
dominance to convince corporate customers to adopt their nonexistent
``solution'' over a competitor's mature alternative. This has the
effect of creating a ``let's wait for Microsoft'' mentality in those
responsible for corporate IT spending. The result hurts both
Microsoft's competition and the consumer because innovative
solutions and projects are postponed. An even more serious problem
is occurring regarding Microsoft's lack of quality control and
security within their server, email and browser products. There have
been numerous reports in the press of very serious security problems
in Microsoft products that could easily allow a computer system
using these products to be accessed by unauthorized individuals that
can destroy corporate, government and military data and even take
total control of a computer system remotely. Microsoft's desire to
increase profits by releasing potentially dangerous software that is
not ready for public use, has obvious negative consequences to our
economy and public safety.
It is my opinion that Microsoft needs to be kept from
controlling the industry, and appropriate remedies must be imposed
by the court to prevent these anti-competitive and illegal
activities from occurring in the future.
Edward M. Arszyla
Manager
NECOM, LLC
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009711
From: Anthony D. Minkoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
INTRODUCTION
My name is Anthony D. Minkoff. I am a professional software
engineer. I am not a direct party to this lawsuit, nor do I have any
business relationships with any party to this lawsuit, except as a
customer. I do use Microsoft software in my home and in my work, and
my job consists of developing application software that runs on
Microsoft's ``Windows'' family of operating systems.
I am a citizen of the United States of America.
I claim no expertise in relevant legal or economic issues. My
only claims to expertise in relevant technical issues are those that
are described above? that I am a professional developer of software
applications for Microsoft operating systems and a user of Microsoft
products. My interest in the case follows from the same
considerations, and from the fact that I am a citizen of the United
States of America. I'll briefly describe my personal opinion of the
proposed settlement, and then offer a proposal of my own for
consideration.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
DUBIOUS EFFECTIVENESS
One concern that I have is that the proposed settlement would be
ineffectual in curbing future monopolistic behavior by Microsoft.
This concern has been expressed by others who are undoubtedly more
knowledgeable and eloquent than I, so I recommend that the reader
refer to other available comments and briefs for detailed analysis
of this point. I mention it merely to convey that I share the
concern.
LACK OF PUNITIVE PROVISIONS
Another concern I have is the apparent lack of any punitive
provisions in the settlement. As I have stated, I am not
knowledgeable of the legal issues, and don't know whether the law
calls for punitive remedies, but as a consumer and a citizen I am
concerned about their absence. It seems to me that, when laws have
been violated, it is essential that the remedies do not leave the
violator better off for having committed the violation. The remedy
must either prevent the violator enjoying the benefits of the
transgressions already committed, or impose punishments that exceed
the benefits.
In this case, it has been found that Microsoft's current
monopoly power is at least partly a result of past monopolistic
abuses. So, even assuming that the proposed settlement would
successfully prevent future monopolistic abuses by Microsoft, it
seems insufficient. I think it's also necessary that Microsoft be
punished for, or denied the benefits of, the abuses that it has
already committed.
A PROPOSAL
The proposal that I am about to describe would, I believe,
protect the interests of consumers and competitors, while at the
same time protecting Microsoft's rights to innovate, to compete, to
profit according to the value of its production, and even to
continue to dominate the industry. I will describe the proposal, and
then describe why I believe it would be beneficial to consumers and
competitors while protecting for Microsoft the legitimate benefits
of its production. Despite my expressed concerns about the lack of
punitive provisions in the existing settlement, this proposal is not
punitive in intent. The harm to Microsoft would be moderate, and
would consist essentially of fostering competition where Microsoft
has historically enjoyed a lack of competition. I would like the
parties to consider the ideas contained in this proposal, and
consider incorporating them into a revised settlement. I would like
the court to consider the ideas contained in this proposal when
fashioning court-ordered remedies.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposal is that, in areas in which Microsoft has been found
to have abused monopoly power, its software come under a ``Delayed
Open Source License'' (``DOSL'') . The relevant areas certainly
include operating systems, internet browsers, and Microsoft's
``Office'' software, and possibly others as well.
In a DOSL, software would become open source four years from its
date of publication.\1\ For example, ``Windows NT 4, .... Windows
98,'' and earlier versions of Windows would become open source
immediately; ``Windows 2000'' some time in late 2003 or early 2004;
``Windows Millennium Edition'' in 2004; ``Windows XP'' in 2005; and
future versions of Windows four years from the dates of their
initial publication.
When a product becomes open source under this rule, its source
code (including internal documentation, test plans, etc.) would be
made available to the public for free or for nominal cost.\2\ Under
the terms of the DOSL, other parties would be permitted to create
and publish derivative works; any such derivative works would also
fall under DOSL? that is, four years from the publication of the
derivative work, the derivative work becomes open source, etc.
HOW CUSTOMERS AND COMPETITORS BENEFIT FROM THE PROPOSAL
Microsoft currently enjoys barriers to competition that can be
conservatively described as enormous, and fairly described as
insurmountable.
There is a vast library of software available that runs on
Windows operating systems. (I have participated in the development
of a number of such applications myself.) Many web sites are
compatible only with Microsoft's ``Internet Explorer'' browser, and
many are compatible only with browsers running on Windows.
A similar phenomenon affects ``wetware''. Millions of
technicians have expertise in diagnosing, maintaining, and repairing
systems running Windows or other Microsoft software. Developers have
experience developing software to run on Microsoft's operating
systems and developing web sites to work well with Microsoft's
browsers. Hundreds of millions of users worldwide have experience
using Microsoft software.
Only Microsoft is in any position to take advantage of all the
software and expertise that has been created around Microsoft's
products. This is the ``positive feedback loop'' that is partly
described in the Findings of Fact.
As part of a remedy for the monopolistic behavior, therefore, we
want to give potential competitors a chance to enter that loop. The
ability to base development on older versions of Windows (or
Internet Explorer, Office, etc.) creates that possibility. It will
make it possible to develop software that can take advantage of
third-party products that work with Microsoft products, of
technicians' expertise with Microsoft products, and of users'
experience with Microsoft products.
When other parties have an opportunity to enter the loop,
Microsoft will be unable to wield its exclusive position as a
weapon. For example, one of the abuses found in this case is
Microsoft's threat to devastate Apple by refusing to continue to
develop Office for Apple's ``Mac OS'' operating system. Under this
proposal, Apple would be able to
[[Page 25193]]
respond to such a threat by continuing to develop Office itself,
basing its own development on the source code of ``Office 98''\3\.
The existence of this viable alternative for Apple would prevent
Microsoft from exacting draconian terms as a condition of the
continued development of Office for Mac OS. It would also protect
Apple in the event that Microsoft's continued development of Office
for Mac OS is of poor quality.
Customers would benefit directly from this increased
competition, since competing offerings would increase customer
choice. Furthermore, if a third party develops a competing version
of a Microsoft product with features that prove popular, Microsoft
will have an opportunity to incorporate similar features into future
versions of its own offerings, potentially leading to better quality
products from Microsoft.
Other customer benefits of open source software have been
extensively discussed, and I refer the reader to http://
www.opensource.org for papers on this topic.
HOW THE PROPOSAL PROTECTS MICROSOFT'S RIGHT TO PROFIT FROM ITS
PRODUCTION
An important quality of any remedy is fairness to Microsoft, and
this proposal is fair. Consider, as an example, Windows XP, which
Microsoft advertises as a dramatic improvement over earlier versions
of Windows. For the sake of this discussion, we assume that
Microsoft's claim in this regard is accurate.
Since Windows XP is a dramatic improvement over earlier versions
of Windows, demand for it should withstand the open source release
of Windows NT 4 and Windows 98. A free copy of Windows NT 4 or
Windows 98 is not an effective substitute for Windows XP. A third-
party developer may be able to use the Windows NT 4 source code as a
basis from which to develop its own operating system to compete with
Windows XP, or may wait for Windows 2000 to be become open source
and use that as the basis for development. However, it took
Microsoft two years to develop Windows XP from Windows 2000, despite
employing the very individuals who had created Windows 2000 in the
first place and who therefore understood its source code and
architecture better than anyone. (Starting from Windows NT 4, it
took more than five years to develop Windows XP.) Presumably, a
competing developer, beginning at a similar starting point after the
publication of Windows 2000's source code, would require a similar
amount of time to develop a product capable of competing in the
market against Windows XP. By that time, given the historical rate
of development of operating systems, Microsoft will have released a
successor to Windows XP, and perhaps even a second successor. If the
successor is a significant improvement over Windows XP, then the
successor should enjoy success in the marketplace against a
competing product that has only just become able to compete with XP.
As another example, consider the possibility, as described above, of
Apple creating its own version of Office based on the source code
from Office 98. Apple's offering in this regard would be four years
behind what Microsoft is able to develop, so it Would clearly be in
Apple's interests to negotiate for continued development of the
software by Microsoft. Apple would resort to developing its own
version only if (1) it is unable to negotiate fair terms with
Microsoft, (2) Microsoft fails to demonstrate a commitment to
quality in continued development of Office, or (3) Apple simply
feels that it can do a much better job than Microsoft despite
Microsoft's four-year head start. In any case, so long as Microsoft
continues to develop and sell Office for Mac OS; so long as it
continues to add value to the product, Apple's competing version
shouldn't be much of a threat to Microsoft's version.
This same line of reasoning applies to all of the product areas
under consideration. As long as Microsoft continues to add value to
its products, it will be able to continue selling current products,
even while old versions of the products are available for free. As
long as it continues to develop these improvements with reasonable
efficiency, a four-year developmental head start will ensure
Microsoft's ability to stay ahead of competing developers and to
continue to dominate the industry.
However, a remedy incorporating the ideas of this proposal would
weaken Microsoft's ability to dominate the industry simply by virtue
of exclusive compatibility with the technology and knowledge that
others have built around Microsoft software. That is, Microsoft
won't be able to depend on its monopolistic position to lock out
competition altogether. While Microsoft would undoubtedly feel
harmed by this, it is clearly not undue harm. It is fair, and
consistent with the intent of the antitrust laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE1: I assume a four-year delay for the purpose of this
discussion; while a remedy could provide for a delay of different
extent, I believe that a three- or four-year deal is optimal. I
leave open the question of whether a ``public beta'' qualifies as
publication. I also leave open the challenge of constructing
provisions to ensure that Microsoft can not circumvent of the
determination of a ``publication'' date by, for example, making the
software available only to members of certain private organizations
that between them happen to include just about anybody who would
want to join. Other enforcement provisions would include escrow of
the source code to ensure that Microsoft doesn't somehow ``lose'' it
before publication.
NOTE2: Special provisions may be made for parts of the code
related to strong cryptography. Such parts would be made available
only to citizens of the U.S. I understand that it is a violation of
federal law to export strong cryptography capabilities or to make it
available to foreign nationals. There may be other special cases as
well, but nothing that would prevent the code as a whole from being
used to build the target software or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
NOTE3: Apple does produce a business productivity software
suite, called ``AppleWorks,'' which in some ways does compete with
Microsoft's Office. However, this is not quite a substitute for
Office. For one thing, it is a less expensive, less featured product
than Office, and targeted at a different class of customer. (In this
way, it is more comparable to Microsoft's ``Works'' software than to
Office.) AppleWorks can not be used to work with Office documents
directly. (It is possible to use a ``converter'' to translate Office
documents to AppleWorks documents and vice versa, so long as the
documents don't use features that are unique to one product or the
other. This is a less-than-ideal solution when one needs to exchange
documents with Office users.) Finally, simply because it is a
different product, it is not possible for AppleWorks to take
advantage of all the existing ``wetware'' built around Office.
Whether or not AppleWorks is inherently comparable to Office, it is
not Office, and therefore suffers from ``network effects'' in an
Office-dominated world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTC-00009712
From: Ed A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009713
From: ARTHUR HUPP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:17am
Subject: E-Mail Settlement
Enough is Enough!!!!! Let's let Mircosoft get on with being a
successful company and quit wasting the taxpayers money!!!!
Art Hupp
MTC-00009714
From: Randy Williams 10
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dept. of Justice:
I find it strange that the dept. of Justice is asking for public
opinion to consider the Microsoft settlement. I thought the law was
the law, not mob rule. Microsoft has done this world more good than
any other business that comes to mind. The Liberal attacks against
there success was uncalled for,and I expect better from this
administration.
An American Patriot.
Randy Williams
521 Sandal Ct.
Altamonte Springs
Fl. 32714
MTC-00009715
From: sue ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:23am
Subject: END CLINTON ERA ABUSE
END THE ABUSE CLINTON ERA CREATED. LET AMERICA AND AMERICAN
COMPANIES DO THEIR THING. STAY OUT OF WHERE WE DON'T BELONG. GATES
HAS DONE MANY WONDERFUL THINGS FOR AMERICA. SPEND YOUR TIME AND
EFFORT GOING AFTER THE REAL LAW BREAKERS.. STOP CLINTON ABUSE.
THANKS
SUE RYAN
MTC-00009716
From: Sherry Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:42am
Subject: end anti-trust law abuse
Briefly--and to the point--end the anti-trust law abuse that
began during Clinton's ``reign''. It's a new era, let's remove the
taint of past mistakes and start over.
PS91,
Sherry Roberts
MTC-00009717
From: DeBois Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Morning,
I am writing you concerning the Microsoft Settlement and the law
(officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public comment period
between now and January 28th. I say it's high time that this
ridiculous litigation nonsense by nine dissenting states be stopped.
The settlement that was reached between the USDOJ and nine states
clearly is fair to all parties concerned. I think it's high time to
close these issues against Microsoft and move on.
If you need further information from me, please feel free to e-
mail me.
Thank you,
Dean DeBois
MTC-00009718
From: Michael Kuncaitis Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:02am
Subject: microsoft setlement
I say hurray for free enterprise. Yes, there are problems--no
matter what you do. It is time we considered also the good people
and companies do, not just the bad.
I AM SO SICK OF JEALOUS, GET YOUR OWN COMPANY, PEOPLE WHO CANNOT
STAND TO SEE OTHERS WIN AND SUCCEED.
BILL GATES IS VERY RICH AND I THINK HE DID GREAT (AND DID SOME
WRONG MISTAKES). I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM NO MATTER WHAT OFFICE HE RAN
FOR--BECAUSE HE CAN GET THE JOB DONE AND DONE!
GIVE HIM A PARADE AND LEAVE HIM ALONE. COMPETITION IS GREAT..
Thanks,
Mike K.
[[Page 25194]]
MTC-00009719
From: Charles Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I hope that the nine renagade states are not able to unduly
influence the Federal Settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft is a
great company that tries to serve its customers. Microsoft should
obey antitrust law where it is reasonably interpreted. I believe
Microsoft helps its customers, including me, and gives them products
that are a good value.
Thank You
Charles Stout
MTC-00009720
From: Dane Vertefay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice Representative,
The short opinion-- Yes, I feel that the settlement is in the
best interest of the American people and that it is fair. Please
finalize this issue by the current terms. Further--I believe that
bringing closure to this issue through reasonable terms is the right
thing for the consumers and our economy, and I am happy to see an
end to this dispute. It is understandable that some of the large
corporate competitors will push their states to continue this issue,
but I feel that finalizing this issue under the terms set forth is
the best for the consumers and businesses as well.
I believe that the standardization of my computer desktop
programs has helped my company communicate internally with our four
offices and even more importantly with my customers and suppliers as
well. The fact that a standard platform for the desktop happened
through the 1980's & '90's and has significantly contributed to the
growth of many industries is the primary benefit, the fact that that
company is called ``Microsoft'' is by the consumers choice from the
products available at the time those decisions were originally made.
Note--I have used computers since 1981(Apple) switched to IBM
Compatible with Microsoft in the early '90's (24 Gateway PC's
currently) and feel that I understand the issue very well, although
I did not see all the case evidence presented by either side.
Thank you for taking the time to ``hear'' my opinion.
Sincerely,
Dane Vertefeuille
Raleigh, NC
MTC-00009721
From: Pybus, Keith
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/9/02 8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
18 Brookside Lane
Vernon Rockville, Connecticut 06066
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This letter is to express my opinion and to also go on record
about the proposed settlement to the antitrust suit between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am pleased that a
settlement has been reached, and I am glad that both sides made out
well.
The settlement is fair and reasonable to all parties involved,
even though some of the restrictions are too harsh on Microsoft. In
fact, some restrictions have been applied to technologies and
products that were not even an issue in the lawsuit.
However, the time has come to put this messy issue behind us and
move on. In my profession I provide desktop instruction to employees
at the world's largest casino, and Microsoft has made what I do much
easier. The integration that Microsoft has provided makes everyone
more efficient at what they do.
I am in favor of the settlement between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice, and hope to see the conclusion of this saga
soon.
Sincerely,
Keith E. Pybus
Mashantucket Pequot Academy
Phone:ext. 21021 (860-312-1021)
Fax:ext. 20133 (860-312-1033)
MTC-00009722
From: Ivan Ivanov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
This email is my modest attempt to support Microsoft in the
case.
As an IT professional I would like to express bitter
disapointment from the damage this case has caused the IT companies
and the whole IT industry.
Hope DOJ will find reasonable settlement for the case which so
far was only a backup for for Microsoft arogant competitors.
Best Regards,
Ivan Ivanov
Software Engineer
MTC-00009723
From: Alex Hulse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam
I am a user of a wide variety of OSes on my PCs, which I use for
business and pleasure. I have used the full range of Microsoft
Windows OSes and several 'alternative' OSes including Linux
distributions, BeOS 5 and QNX.
I have been informed that you seek out the views of people as to
what they feel is important in the final settlement in the case
against Microsoft. My feeling is that the field has to be levelled
regarding dual booting. Microsoft forbids the option to boot any
other OS other than Windows on their OEM's machines. This is unfair.
Microsoft should allow their competitors equal rights to the
machine, to allow OEMs to choose the OS that suits the machine best,
or allow their customers to make that decision themselves. Even if
Windows is still required, it allows the user to see that there is
an option of another OS, and that in some ways they can be better at
different jobs; BeOS's media skills jump immediately to mind.
I hope that you find my thoughts useful and that they can help
towards making the OEM PC industry a fairer place for companies
others than Microsoft.
Yours Faithfully
Alexander Hulse
MTC-00009724
From: Bill Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:14am
Subject: Tunney Act proposed Microsoft settlement comment
Gentlemen:
Per the provisions of the Tunney Act of 1974, I'd like to
register my dismay and strong disagreement to the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. It is a clear triumph
of politics over law and makes a travesty of the legal process.
Microsoft was found guilty of abuse of its monopoly powers and
that decision was affirmed on appeal. The proposed settlement is a
slap on the wrist for a company whose predatory practices and
continue to this day. Microsoft's defence appears to be based on the
fact that to punish it would stifle innovation yet the bulk of its
products, going back to the original MSDOS, were lifted from the
work of others. If the Department of Justice were truly interested
in upholding the law it would be seeking effective remedies such as
the release of the Windows source code and/or the breakup of the
company. For shame!
Bill Schmidt
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009725
From: Gary Pigg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:24am
Subject: End the attack on Microsoft.
MTC-00009726
From: Ed (038) Cathy Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:25am
Subject: Let go of the Microsoft debacle!
It is time to put this case to an end once and for all! In a
country where Free Enterprise is a cornerstone to our history, and
our current culture, why is the Justice Department continuing to
pursue this ridiculous persecution of a company whose only crime is
being the first to come up with the idea of contracting with
computer manufacturers, and making a better product? If Microsoft
does not have a better product the public will discover it and the
better product will survive!
Edward Sweeney
MTC-00009727
From: Freddy (038) Dana Yates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:30am
Subject: Clinton-era anti-trust abuse
Drop the microsoft case and quit prosecuting Clinton era anti-
trust cases. We have more important issues to prosecute.
Corporations make jobs and we need this right now. Bill Clinton done
more against the justice system than Microsoft ever did.
Thank you.
Joseph F. Yates
4411 Beechland Rd
Springfield, Ky 40069
[[Page 25195]]
MTC-00009728
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Microsoft Settlement should be upheld and
that all should get on with work as usual ASAP. I do not understand
the whole thing as this is the United States of America where free
enterprise is supposed to be encouraged. If one has a superior
product, his competitors must come up with something better. If you
can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen--as the saying goes.
MTC-00009729
From: John P. Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust
I am an extremely busy person but I thought it sufficiently
important to stop all my meetings this morning to allow myself time
to comment on the task before the justice department.
Microsoft has since it inception co-opted, coerced and colluded
with various manufacturers, both software and hardware, to not only
dominate but decimate the marketplace. This is seen most clearly in
the case of my operating system of choice, the Macintosh but applies
equally well to Sun, Unix, Linux and others.
Without the Mac none of you today would use a mouse, a graphical
user interface (GUI) or even be discussing this topic because it
would not exist. Microsoft quite clearly stole the OS design from
Apple and although their lawyers were better than Apple1s in
defending their case, nothing can change the fact that Windows in
any flavor did NOT exist prior to the Macintosh. Since that time,
Microsoft has gone on to co-opt every area that is available
starting of course with business world. To be sure when this process
started there was no apriori reason to believe that Microsoft would
prevail and had they not procured the GUI, their market dominance
would never be what it is today.
I must say that I find it interesting that we speak in this
country of diversity and how each of us needs to look for and
nourish diversity wherever and whenever we can find it. Indeed the
very basis of this country is diversity, EXCEPT where it comes to
computer OS1s it seems. There we must cherish uniformity, mediocrity
and domination. How does this jive with the constitutional basis of
our nation? How does one justify basically telling me what system I
will or will not use in my home? Oh, I am sure you will say that
this does not happen but it does! Our school is a classic example.
By using market dominance in business, Microsoft has coerced the
University to become a Windows only shop. Now if I want to access
certain information from home I must use a Windows computer or I
cannot do my job. Is this what our country really wants? To be tied
permanently and completely to one system? Especially if that system
is riddled with security flaws and holes? I hope not. Why is this
relevant to the current recommendation? As you can see, the ability
of Microsoft to compel users to them is governed in a major way by
how they can distribute their product. If you act to make that
distribution easier, you doom all of us to a certain future in the
hands of one, not so responsive, company. We as a nation would not
tolerate one electric company, one public water company, one public
sewer, trash, etc, why will we tolerate this?
Further, when do we decide that my decision to use Linux or Unix
or the Mac is any different than my choice of religion. Oh I can
hear you, this is ridiculous as an analogy, but it actually works
quite well. Religions are faith based, certainly in this case you
are putting your work, your life in a very real sense, in the hands
of the computer company with which you do business. If that religion
or OS fails you, that is probably the end of your relationship;
unless of course there is no other religion to choose . . .
Religions are also chosen, most commonly by prior association but
also quite commonly by the individual making a conscious decision to
select the religion that most closely matches their world view. We
consider religion to be a sacrosanct virtue in this country and
protect and guard it closely. Should it be any different for our OS
choice? Is it really in our country1s best interest to decrease the
number of choices for religions? They tried that in Afghanistan . .
.
One might well ask how the current proposal will effect these
changes? By making it very easy for Microsoft to enter into an arena
where they have not traditionally dominated, education, one knocks
down the last barrier to choice left in this country. The Apple
proposal is wholly more sensible. Allowing schools to use the money
donated by Microsoft in any manner that they see fit, allows true
choice to continue and preserves the multi-ethnic character of our
computer world.
Indeed one could easily take the stand that to truly preserve
the multi-ethinicity of our computer world we need affirmative
action. That is we need to actually insist that some businesses be
given special incentives to use OTHER computer OS1s in order to
cause this multi-ethnicity to flourish. How can it be that we seek
to do good in one area of our country while doing harm in another?
In closing I would make one other analogy, this one quite close
to home. There are many reasons why diversity is valued in a culture
but it is also valued in nature. Indeed the very essence of nature
is diversity. I do not think it is too much of a stretch to imagine
what happens when one seeks to shrink the gene pool. There are
numerous examples of how treacherous that coastline is...we need
only think back on the 20th century to see what can happen when this
type of thought process is allowed to roam free.
More importantly, what would happen to group of people that were
closely related and interbred when a new disease enters that group.
If the group is sensitive to the infective organism, their culture
is decimated. Look at what happened to the native Americans or
islanders soon after the arrival of Europeans. With no natural
immunity to smallpox, they were eradicated just as surely as if that
had been a conscious and willful act. Do we really wish to place
ourselves in this same position with our computers, our knowledge,
our lives . . .
I urge you to reject the current proposal for Microsoft at all
costs. It is a dangerous and crumbling cornice on which we do not
need to stand. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.
Sincerely yours
John P Williams, MD
Interim Chair
UPP Dept. of Anesthesiology
A-1305 Scaife Hall
3550 Terrace St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15261
Voice 412-648-9624
FAX412-648-1887
MTC-00009730
From: Mary Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is getting ridiculous. Will you please stop wasting the
taxpayers money already? The public has always had a right to chose
what they want. If I go to the store I have choices. They may not be
a lot of choices but then again, I haven't seen any other products
out there that are as efficient and user-friendly. All these
companies need to stop complaining and come out with a good,
reliable product that consumer would want. If they had worked as
hard as they are fighting against Microsoft they would have a good
product by now!
What kind of country have we become when we go after people that
are only trying to improve our technology and benefit the world?
Instead of wasting your time with this ludicrous pursuit you should
all be looking for Bin Laden and his people and stop harassing
valued and outstanding citizens like Mr. Gates and his employees.
Sincerely,
Satisfied Microsoft Consumer
MTC-00009731
From: Rep.Jensen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 10:22am
Subject: Attn: Renata Hesse
MTC-00009732
From: David Brookes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:32am
Subject: USG vs. MSFT
Dave Brookes
2220 Montgomery Avenue
Cardiff, CA 92007
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
During this time of economic strain, it is sad to see the
government holding back on issues that would obviously be beneficial
to our economy. The recent Microsoft settlement was reached after
three years of well thought out negotiations, and with the benefit
of our entire IT sector in mind.
Well, now that it is ready to move forward and get things
rolling, there still seems to be those who want to drag it through
the mud. Not only has Microsoft agreed to reconfigure licensing and
marketing terms, but also it has agreed to redesign various formats
of
[[Page 25196]]
Windows in order to facilitate easier use of non-Microsoft software.
These concessions, along with many others have been agreed upon in
order to get the IT sector to move forward in this global market.
Now that all parties are ready to move, why can't we get back to
business?
Please help support this settlement, and all of the well thought
out concessions that have been made. Let us not be the ones to hold
back our economy.
Is it not time for Washington to do something for the people?
Have we not paid for all the mistake Washington makes? Why are we
always fighting for ourselves? Why does Washington contiune to harm
it's tax paying, voting citizen?
Sincerely,
Dave Brookes
MTC-00009733
From: Cameron Purdy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:31am
Subject: Proposed Settlement
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney I am submitting my comments as per
the instructions in the Federal Register in regards to the pending
case brought by states and the US Department of Justice against
Microsoft.
1. I have read the findings of fact from the case, as penned by
Judge Penfield Jackson, I have read the Final Judgment, as proposed
by the United States and Microsoft, and I have read the proposed
remedies from the nine states that rejected the United States/
Microsoft proposed Final Judgment.
2. I concur that the proposed Final Judgment could potentially
limit certain actions that Microsoft has historically employed
against computer OEMs.
3. I find no other relationship between the known and accepted
transgressions of Microsoft against antitrust law as presented and
proved at trial, and the proposed Final Judgment.
It is my opinion that the proposed Final Judgment does not
address most of Microsoft's illegal behaviors that were clearly
documented at trial: It does not submit that such behaviors have
taken place; it does not attempt to correct the past wrongs; it does
not include any punitive measures; and lastly it does not attempt to
prevent future transgressions.
On the other hand, the nine states' proposals are based on the
conclusion that Microsoft has transgressed, that there must be
actions taken to correct those transgressions, that punitive
measures may be appropriate for those transgressions, and that it is
necessary to provide a means to prevent or address future
transgressions. While arguably flawed, the proposals are at least
based on the known and proven transgressions, and at least attempt
to respond to those transgressions. How could it be that the
proposed Final Judgment negotiated by the US Department of Justice
does not take the same approach? One must question where the
proposed Final Judgment originated, since it certainly cannot have
originated from the findings of the trial known as the United States
of America v. Microsoft Corporation that many of us have so closely
watched.
I submit that it would be far better for the United States to
altogether drop the proposed Final Judgment and request dismissal of
the case than to enter such a flawed and pointless document as a
final judgment. The proposed Final Judgment does not provide any
sense or form of justice; rather it represents an absolute mockery
of our government's will to enforce the law and lends credence to
the growing chorus of voices that lament the influence of money and
politics over those appointed to protect the interests of the people
of the United States of America.
Respectfully submitted,
Cameron Purdy, President
Tangosol Inc.
402A Highland Ave
Somerville MA 02144 USA
MTC-00009734
From: Craig Madsen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 10:32am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust Case
From: Craig Madsen
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:42 PM
To: `[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
Dear DOJ, etc.,
I am writing to put my 2 cents worth about the antitrust case
against Microsoft Corp.
I feel like Microsoft is using their OS dominance to stifle
every bit of competition possible. I totally agree with the 9 states
that are fighting this thing to the bitter end. I also don't agree
with the current settlement at all. For Microsoft to spend a bunch
of money for the schools does absolutely nothing to stop them from
continuing to do what they have been doing for years--except try to
catch up with Apple, Inc. in the school battles!! I also don't mind
spending my tax dollars to do whatever is necessary to make them pay
for what they have already done.
We watched them 'give away' a browser and all but kill a
competitor(s). Tomorrow they start giving away databases, and before
long, who knows? If there was a competitor to the government, they
would buy them, reduce the price on whatever they were selling to
nothing and kill them off too. Once dead, they can raise the price
back to whatever they need to.
Do I want Microsoft dead? Probably not, however, I want them to
have to use the same playing field as the rest of the businesses in
america that don't control 90% of the operating system business.
Break them up. Make them give out their source code to anyone, so we
could all make products as quickly as them!
p.s. I was trying to send this to: microsoft.atr@usdoj as well,
but my e-mail package didn't like this. Do you know how I can get a
copy of this to them?
Thanks,
Craig Madsen
(801)-961-3045
155 North 400 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1111
MTC-00009735
From: Donald Bosshart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been using computers since 1966, have read the proposed
settlement and think that it is very fair. MS has made computing
simple and very very productive. I use MS products to operate my
business.
While some would like to distroy MS, they are motivated by greed
and anger. The punishment should fit the crime and the current
settlement goes way beyond the crime. Let us move beyond this case
and move forward to new innovations. Settle it now!
Donald A. Bosshart, Ed. D.
315 Elmwood Drive
Kent OH 44240
MTC-00009736
From: Richard Buckley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:52am
Subject: For cryin out loud.
The Clinton era bashed these For cryin out loud. The Clinton era
bashed these people to no end. This has gone on long enough. I am
from the old school ``if you build a better mouse trap they will
come.'' All these competitors and Attorney Generals who are crying
over Microsoft's success is just sour grapes.
They have created more jobs and more entrepreneours, (sic), in
this country than any single company in existence. Why bash them
about their success? I do not own any Microsoft stock nor have I
ever owned any but I can tell when jealous come into play and that
is all this is. If you want to beat them in the marketplace then
make a better product. I will buy it. It is that simple.
MTC-00009737
From: steve parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There is no settlement of any kind that can be considered fair
for Microsoft. All aspects of the DOJ case against Microsoft are so
unjust that I could sit here and generate a book, rather than a
simple email message (I'll save the book for a later time). Instead,
I would rather express what I believe is one of the key reasons why
any settlement of any kind is unjust for Microsoft Corp.
AOL, which has been a key Internet Service Provider (ISP) for
years, has held the largest market share within the industry, more
than any other ISP, including MSN (the Microsoft Network). Yet AOL
went whining to the government that they were being monopolized by
Microsoft, and now Microsoft is having unjust legalities imposed
upon them, not because they are a monopoly, but because there is the
?potential? that one day they ?may become? a monopoly.
Several years ago, I was a CompuServe user. Then (before AOL
ever went running to the government) I switched to AOL. I installed
their product on my computer and used AOL as my ISP for just over a
month. They frequently advertised about being the most user-friendly
ISP around. A month is all I could stand. They were awful. Their
software always blew up on my computer and their tech support
service was nearly incompetent. For example, 3 of their techs
[[Page 25197]]
said the problem was my computer, not their software. So I bought
another computer and installed the AOL software again. The same
problems. After trying NetZero and AT&T, I eventually found MSN to
be superior to them all.
Microsoft is a serious company and a serious competitor. As the
old saying goes, ?if you can?t stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen?. But apparently, today's new saying is, ?if you can?t stand
the heat, go running to the government?. AOL whining is what brought
this situation to where it is today. Microsoft faces these
settlements, not because it was being an unfair competitor, but
because they are a competitor in the truest sense. Hopefully the
government won?t eventually ?break the back? of one of the greatest
technology corporations this world has every seen, cause if they do,
then we might get stuck with crap like AOL.
MTC-00009738
From: Jason of Sedona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer consultant I believe I have a fair understanding
of the case and it's impact on the industry. I understand the role
of Microsoft, the participating State A.G.s and the role that
Netscape and the competition plays. Considering that the case has
gone this far, it is my belief that the case needs to be settled as
quickly and fairly as possible.
For eighteen years I have been working with Microsoft products.
I have been hoping to build a successful company and create a niche
in the market myself. If I were lead to believe that this travesty
of justice could happen to me upon becoming successful then I would
be less likely to even try. To have the Justice Department and the
Attorney Generals be against me because my competition is jealous of
my success and has lobbied to slow my success is appalling. There is
no question in my mind. Microsoft has moved this industry and this
great country into a computing era that allows ALL of us to succeed.
Netscape, AOL, and Yahoo who, if NOT for Microsoft, would not be
here to complain about how much is their share of the market. Please
settle this in Microsoft's favor because that in turn will benefit
me, and my business, and my customers, and my Country.
Thank you.
Jason Tamm
Jason Tamm Consulting
Sedona, AZ 86351
MTC-00009739
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have followed this law suit for some time now and want to
express my opinion on the matter. I would ask that the settlement
with Microsoft be accepted and let's get on with the business of
rebuilding our country's economy. This has gone on long enough and
needs to be settled and placed behind us as we are attempting to
accomplish more important things.
Lawrence L. Pomeroy
MTC-00009740
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/9/02 11:20am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: I work in the tech industry designing
CPU's. I have been extensively involved in the use and design of
computer hardware and software for years. It is probably also worth
noting that I do not work for a company that competes with
Microsoft.
I would like to state my strong oposition to the proposed
Microsoft settlement based on the following grounds:
(1) The proposed settlement does not forceably correct the
problem of illegal anti-competitive behavior which the courts ruled
Microsoft has engaged in.
(2) The proposed settlement does not even give Microsoft much of
an incentive to correct the illegal anti-competitive behavior.
(3) This anti-competitive behavior has caused and continues to
cause enormous harm to consumers and the economy.
The proposed settlement does not forceably correct the problem
of illegal anti-competitive behavior which the courts ruled
Microsoft has engaged in. The settlement only asks for some very
limited behavior modification and does very little to ensure that
even these limited behavior modifications can be enforced.
Microsoft's history clearly demonstrates it's ability to be creative
in it's anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft's history further
demonstrates it's willingness to break laws and violate agreements
if it thinks it can get away with it. This case, which is about
violation of a previous consent decree and of our nations anti-trust
laws, clearly demonstrates this. Any successful remedy must be
enforceable and comprehensive.
The proposed settlement does not even give Microsoft much of an
incentive to correct the illegal anti-competitive behavior. Take
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in the browser market, for
example. Microsoft behaved in an illegal, anti-competitive manner
because it was concerned that the browser platform could threaten or
replace it's business and consumer desktop software platform
monopoly. It's behavior made sure that this threat was eliminated.
The proposed settlement would slap Microsoft with a few minor
unenforceable behavior restrictions. If you set aside ethics and
morality, that looks like a pretty good return on investment. This
is not lost on Microsoft.
The anti-competitive behavior has caused and continues to cause
enormous harm to consumers and the economy. This is one of the least
understood and most important aspects of this case. Clearly, the
government wants to protect the economy. Protecting the economy is a
noble goal, but they are misguided in trying to do so by protecting
Microsoft. The fundamental driving force of capitalism is
competition. Microsoft would argue that it is only being punished
for being a ruthless competitor. However, throughout the history of
our country, there have been many examples of monopolistic, anti-
competitive behavior causing harm to the economy. Many times and in
many ways, the goverment has stepped in with rules which provide a
level competitive playing field on which competition may flurish.
There are rules against cornering commodities markets. There are
accounting rules. There are truth in advertising rules. There are
rules against fraud. There are rules against selling defective
products.--And, there are rules against leveraging a monopoly to
eliminate competition. Breaking any of these rules could be
portrayed as just being a ruthless competitor, but our economy will
not function very well at all if these rules are not enforced. I
could go on and on giving examples of how Microsoft's illegal anti-
competitive behavior has harmed the competition, but any and all
examples can be disputed (because we can't replay history) if one
does not believe that leveraging a monopoly to thwart competition
fundamentally harms consumers and the economy. If one does believe
this, then examples are not hard to come by. (Although understanding
the examples usually requires a fair amount of technical competence
and understanding of the industry--always a difficult aspect of this
case.)
Sincerely,
James McCormick
[email protected]
P.S. The opinions expressed in this letter are mine alone. They
do not in any way represent any positions taken by my employer.
MTC-00009741
From: Mike Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:22am
Subject: The let em oof free deal
I wish to express my concerns for the reported deal between
Microsoft and States and Gov. It is the type of deal that lawyers
such as those of microsoft hire can work around on a daily basis
without even a hitch in their daily operations as they intended them
to be anyway. This deal does nothing to remedy the fact they have
stolen from the public in many ways including monetary and products
that could have been, but were squashed by this unruly giant.
On the subject of fines, I certainly think a very large fine
would make sense, considering their finacial status which is also
coming under eyes.
I certainly hope that the gov. would rejoin the nine states that
have held out and put some controls on this runaway, unruly, money
hungry, corporation.
Mike Hall
MTC-00009742
From: Trish Mercer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:22am
Subject: Please End This Travisty
I have been shocked at this lawsuit from the very beginning. It
only continues to HURT out economy and citizens savings plans.
PLEASE end this outrage! I have yet to see any good coming from
this.
Trish Mercer
PO Box 8825
Columbus, GA 31908
[[Page 25198]]
MTC-00009743
From: Theodore Saari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I received an mass-mailing email from Microsoft that requested
we send our views on the proposed settlement to you ``Whatever your
view of the settlement.'' Just before this ``unbiased'' request for
comments, Microsoft said: ``Unfortunately, a few special interests
are attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement
and prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.''
I have received NO solicitations from any person or group in any
form that asked me to voice my opinion on this settlement. It
appears to me that Microsoft is the one waging a campaign to get
public response to the proposed settlement. The wording of their
request clearly suggests the type of response they desire.
Microsoft's claim that ``only a few wealthy competitors'' will
benefit from prolonged litigation is amazing. Microsoft is one of
the wealthiest companies in the world. Bill Gates is reported to be
the wealthiest person in the world. Many of Microsoft's executives
are extremely wealthy. Microsoft and its executives are the ones who
will benefit most from a quick settlement, especially one where they
have dictated the terms of it. The wealth acquired by Microsoft,
Bill Gates, and the executives is the result of a monopolistic and
coercive business environment. Microsoft's restrictions on
competitors and their use of proprietary ``undocumented features''
of their operating systems has handicapped any competition for
years. Their restrictions and bullying of OEMs has made the MS
operating systems the de facto standard for many years. There are
virtually no competitors to their operating systems.
Microsoft's proposal as part of the settlement to ``donate'' $1
billion in hardware and software to the poorest public schools is
one of the best (and cheapest) advertising gimmicks they could get
from this settlement. Not only will the schools be teaching and
supporting MS products, Microsoft will be able to take a tax
deduction on this advertising. They will reap extreme benefits from
this punishment.
I support the nine states that have not accepted this proposed
settlement and urge the US Government to reject it.
Theodore C Saari
7917 Orchard Ave N
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443-2414
763-585-6578
MTC-00009744
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft
Let us settle this matter as propsed and get it behind us. The
case was origially tainted with the bias of the Clinton
Administration and wealthy competitors who tried to profit from
Microsoft's litigation LET US STOP THIS TYPE OF EXTORTION.
Microsoft has contributed mightily to the American economy and
has suffered enough.
M. Raddie
MTC-00009745
From: Connie Gipson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:26am
Subject: STOP THE ABUSE
Leave Microsoft alone, they have helped millions of people.
Sincerely,
Connie Gipson
MTC-00009746
From: Elvin Kever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:36pm
Subject: M$
Do not let them get away with it!!!
MTC-00009747
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Attn. DOJ:
Please accept this comment as a citizen request to let the
Tunney Act become the final prosecution of Microsoft. I encourage
you not to yield to special interests who would continue to bring
lawsuit after lawsuit of Microsoft into the courts.
Dick Crump
([email protected])
MTC-00009748
From: Bill Thomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in support of the current proposed settlement of
the Microsoft antitrust law suite.
I have been involved with building computer based information
systems since the early 1970's one of the most notable being the
Lexis/Nexis information system used by Lawyers and Business
professionals. I have been involved with personal computers since
the introduction of the IBM PC in the early 1980's and have not
always been in agreement with Microsoft's Windows based strategies
in that in the early years they pushed the limits of the desktop
hardware systems they ran on making the development of
telecommunication applications more difficult. The introduction of
Windows 95 with the integration of the TCP/IP protocol within the
operating system changed that perspective completely.
It is clear to me as one who has experienced it--that Microsoft
has been driven by a vision of what personal computers could be in
terms of knowledge access and manipulation tools. The result of that
vision is that my grandchildren can now routinely sit down at a
$1,500 PC system equipped with a Word Processor that came with the
system and perform activity that was not possible to do in any
manner on a $12 million dollar computer in 1975. On that same
computer with the Internet Explorer software suite that came with it
and a $19.99 a month subscription to the internet my grandchildren
in the United States and my grandchildren in Brussels Belgium
routinely have video conferences to share what is going on their
lives use a free service at the Microsoft Network web site.
Microsoft could have at many times during the past 20 years
chosen to take an easier path to profits but instead it has
consistently invested in innovations that have made the things I
listed above a reality that almost all Americans can access if they
choose to regardless of their economic status.
It is my sense that this entire law suite was based upon claims
made by companies who wanted to take that easy route or bet on the
fact that Microsoft would not be able to deliver their vision and
lost. Everyone of them has had the opportunity to deliver the
products they now criticize Microsoft for producing and chose a
different path. Many in a sense had the monopoly and chose to use it
rather than spend on the product development costs create what the
market wanted.
I hope this matter can be settled as proposed in a timely
manner.
Sincerely Yours,
William K. Thomson
4425 Lac Lamen Drive
Centerville, OH 45458-5403
[email protected]
MTC-00009749
From: trebor iksrazal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:48am
Subject: In short, why I am against the settlement
Competition is the key to open, productive markets. It has been
ruled that Microsoft has used its monopoly in several sectors to
wipe out competition in others. I have been a computer programmer
for six years, my first four of which were exclusively on Microsoft
operating systems. I have been programming in Java for the last two
years on Windows, linux, and Sun Solaris. I think that the file
formats to Office, Visual Studio, Windows Media Player, and numerous
others should be submitted to standards committes such as ANSI.
The proposal suggested by California and eight other states to
reveal the source code behind Microsoft Internet Explorer browser
and include support for Sun Microsystems' Java in Windows is also
good. As it stands, my professional livelyhood is threatened by
Microsoft, due to proprietary lock-in to its products. Simply put,
Microsoft has tried to destroy Java and is in an open war with
Linux.
I am constantly sent proprietary Microsoft files while I am
programming on non-Microsoft products. How will the proposed
settlement address these grievances? Clearly to me, they were not
intended to. I would like Microsoft to win me over to their
products, not eliminate the competition as it has largley done to
Netscape.
It is clear that Microsoft is at war with end user self-
determinization.
Look now how Microsoft is using Windows Media Player to destroy
Realplayer, look now how Internet Explorer insists on using
Microsoft's propietary Visual Basic Scripting engine while viewing
web pages that do not use it.
[[Page 25199]]
Look now how Microsoft is manipulating this case to actually
increase its dominance by getting itself into schools.
In short, Microsoft products only work with other Microsoft
products. There is a need to open up their file formats to standards
commitees. there is a need to open the source code to Internet
Explorer so it is possible to view the entire web without a
Microsoft Operating System.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Robert Lazarski
8193 Centrebridge
Niwot, Colorado 80503
MTC-00009750
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:51am
Subject: RE:MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Seymour Beitscher
41 Cypress Point
Abilene, Texas 79606
915-692-1561 [Fax:915-692-1561]
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I take this opportunity to express my views regarding your wise
decision to end the government's antitrust litigation against
Microsoft. I, too, am a buisness owner and, as such, have always
tried to stay ahead of my competition by utilizing new and unique
methods. Some of those methods met with severe criticisms from my
competitors, no matter how innoculous to fair and equitable business
procedures they were. Competitors always cry 'foul' when they are
surpassed by the competition. In essence, that is what I think
occurred in this matter.
However, I do believe the giant [Microsoft] did flex its muscle
a bit to much. Microsoft did not get out of this delemna easy.
Microsoft has agreed to make available information regarding its
internal structure of Windows, which now allows its competitors to
compete. I do not understand this reasoning since I would not supply
my competitors with any procedure I deem propriatory and beneficial
to me.
In conclusion, I think that if the government moves against
Microsoft again it will be nothing more than harrassment. Who is to
say the severe decline in the ``tech'' section of the economy was
not precipitated by the government's legal stance against Microsoft?
Our economy now, more than ever, needs stability.
The economy, and the administration, needs to keep Microsoft out
of the muck and mire it has been stuck in these past three years.
Helping Microsoft weather this storm will be successful in
stimulating the economy over a broad span in the future.
Sincerely,
Seymour Beitscher
MTC-00009751
From: Duane Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:49am
Subject: Opposition to the proposed Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may Concern:
I would like to take the opportunity to voice my opposition to
the comparatively weak settlement offered by the DOJ against
Microsoft. I feel that more should be done to prevent Microsoft from
extending it's monopoly, including opening up it's software so that
consomate professionals can review it and fix the numberous security
flaws that are inherit in its code. If MS is allowe dto proceed with
``business as usual'' then the result will be more bug ridden
software with higher prices.
Please, help restore competition by making Microsoft more
accountable to the people who use their software every day. Thank
you in advance for considering this tract.
Duane Tackett
Network Administrator
Linux Enthusiast
MTC-00009752
From: Bob Agnew
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 11:53am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
The vast majority of the national news media, let alone the
American citizenry, has not understood the ramifications of the
anti-trust case against Microsoft, let alone the ``settlement''
offered therefrom.
We are rapidly moving to a position, as a nation, where the vast
majority of major large corporations as well as small businesses are
becoming dependent on Microsoft and the Windows operating system and
associated products (Office, Internet Explorer).
This is not merely the old ``ta vs. VHS'' argument, but the
complete obviating of all corporate responsibility to Microsoft.
Microsoft has shown complete contempt for the U.S. Government and
people of the United States. Witness the latest changes to the cost
of licensing Microsoft products. Once they've got all the operating
system and desktop application business in their court, they'll be
able to make any changes to the software and/or pricing they so
desire--completely relieving corporate America of any fiduciary
responsibility to shareholders, employees or customers.
Microsoft didn't ``invent'' Windows or the use of the mouse as a
graphic-input device, yet it has a defacto monopoly of the desktop
operating system. We've seen how, in the absence of innovation by
Microsoft, they purchase companies that actually do innovate--then
proceed to bastardize the acquired product/company until the end-
user no longer remembers when a product used to be good. (The
Windows XP operating system is a good example: it now includes a
rudimentary raster image processing/editing tool for the digital
photographer, which will naturally prevent the sales of better
software by highly specialized companies--since XP is including the
barely passable version for free.)
Inevitably, Microsoft will be able to monitor the desktops of
corporate America and perhaps even use ``push'' technology to
advance its own agenda. In other words, Microsoft will eventually
control our economy and the majority of our lifestyle based on the
whims of Mr. Gates & Co. I don't wish to sound alarmist, but even in
its heyday, IBM couldn't be blamed for trying to control as much of
the American economy and lifestyle as Microsoft eventually will.
The settlement of having Microsoft provide software and hardware
to school districts actually plays right into the hands of
Microsoft--at the expense of Apple, which has done a much better job
of courting the school-age computer users. What better way to
encourage the uninterrupted continuation of the Microsoft monopoly
than by getting them ``hooked'' at a young age in the schools? I am
neither a proponent nor an opponent of the PC or the Mac. I just
wish someone, somewhere would realize what all the fuss was about in
the first place: Microsoft stifles competition and innovation.
That's the truth. And just 'cause Microsoft sells Windows, Word,
Access, Internet Explorer--doesn't mean those are the best products.
They're just the cheapest and the easiest for the vast majority of
average Americans to operate. Henry Ford performed a similar
``service'' with the automobile in the early years of that
industry--but he didn't stifle competition and buy out competitors
just to put them out of business. The American Public wouldn't have
stood for that.
Robert M. Agnew
Sr. GIS Analyst--Administrator
City of Las Vegas
(702) 229-6049
MTC-00009753
From: kouryab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:56am
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
I think the so-called settlement with Microsoft will do nothing
except insure that they will increase their monopoly. If they are
allowed to give schools old computers and software to run them all
this will do is make sure that these schools will have to update
their systems with Microsoft software. Most old computers will not
run anything new as far as current operating systems. What should be
done is to make Microsoft pay the settlement amout in cash and then
allow the schools to buy what they need and not be restricted to old
and out dated equiptment and operating sustems.
Al Koury
MTC-00009754
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want it be said I do not agree with prolonging this
settlement. It is meant only to benifit a few and try to stop great
invoation on Microsofts part. Microsoft is responsible for making
home and office computer accessable to all and with out it we would
be up a creek. I say enough is enough get off of Microsofts back and
get on with improving our lives like Micrsoft has done so well.
Nancy Simpson
Indianapolis
MTC-00009755
From: Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
[[Page 25200]]
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
More than a year and a half ago I wrote the following e-mail to
Texas Federal Senators. It basically gives a layman's point-of-view
on the Federal Antitrust Prosecution of Microsoft at that time. You
may wish only to scan the contents at this time.
``Dear Senators,
My understanding of the Federal Anti-trust Laws is that they
were intended to protect the general public from any economic or
physical harm, which may be caused by collusion among individuals
and companies on product price or product availability.
When Judge Thomas Jackson ruled last November that Microsoft
violated Federal Antitrust Laws, he gave no indication that
Microsoft had in any way harmed the public. This seems to me to have
missed the first test on application of the law. In fact, there are
many of us (public) who believe that Microsoft has made a tremendous
contribution to the public through the process of establishing a
workable system of communication through the Internet. There is no
doubt that Microsoft has harmed its competitors through the
competitors' inability to compete strongly. But this is a clear
indication that the purpose of the Anti-trust Laws is functioning;
i.e, fierce competition.
If Microsoft had driven its competitors out of business and then
raised prices beyond reasonable limits or limited product
availability, that would be a different matter. But, they have not
done that. If I were a Microsoft competitor, I would be much tempted
to be in court claiming ``foul'', because that is the easiest way to
gain an advantage. I don't know what motivated Judge Jackson to his
conclusion, but if he was influenced by competitors' claims of pain,
he should have had one more reason to recognize that no anti-trust
violation existed.
We might also consider the matter of ``bundling'', which has
been a ``red herring'' in this whole situation. I recently bought a
Cadillac Deville and wanted the Convenience Package. However, the
``bundle'' included a compass, which I didn't want. Was I hurt, when
I took the ``bundle''? Yes. Did I have an option to not take the
``bundle''? Yes. Can I expect that the Federal Justice Department
will soon be suing General Motors for infringement of Anti-trust
Laws? You may want to answer that one.
Some have said that present Anti-trust Laws are out-moded and
need to be brought up to date. I do not believe that is so.
Violation of the present law is a serious matter. As in most
categories of civil or criminal violation, a violation is committed
by an individual or a group of individuals, who have seriously
damaged the public. The retribution for such damage is jail time,
with the ancillary advantage of discouraging future potential
violators from similar action. Have Bill Gates and perhaps other
members of Microsoft violated Federal Antitrust Laws? If so, they
should get jail time. If jail time seems inappropriate, one should
then re-ask whether there has been a violation.
Human beings tend to enjoy positions of power and authority, and
Federal Prosecutors are no exception. What better way is there for a
Federal Prosecutor to obtain recognition than to prosecute one of
the largest corporations in the world? If we can't get Bill Gates
directly, we'll get him indirectly, even if we can't prove our case
to the extent to give him jail time.
Such action by the Justice Department is not prosecution. It is
persecution and should not be permitted. We have already seen the
difficulties caused by the Spanish Inquisition. The purpose of
government is to establish and maintain a reasonably fair playing
field. When there is a winner, it is not government's role to take
away the prize because other contenders did not have the capability
to compete. If government does that, it is meddling.
We now have 19 states and others, for a total of 28
organizations, also suing Microsoft for anti-trust violations. One
must ask whether these are legitimate suits or whether because of
our litigious society these appendages are using the previous good
reputation of the Federal Government to obtain windfalls in damage
settlements.
Dear Senators, I have earlier said that I believe the present
Anti-trust Laws are satisfactory for today's society. However, with
subsequent sociological changes in our society since the
establishment of those laws, it is probably appropriate for Congress
in general and the Senate in particular to more specifically define
these laws in order to avoid persecution by aggressive career
seekers in the Justice Department.
Through Justice Department persecution, Microsoft is being
seriously hurt financially and in their ability to concentrate on
continued innovation to further develop the Internet and related
communication devices. This is a disadvantage to the general public,
and you may want to consider some form of specific intervention to
bring this matter to a quick conclusion. The law enforcement people
are obviously confused, and I humbly suggest that it is up to
Congress to show leadership.
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
Ph: 806-794-1381
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, Texas 79423''
I recently had a phone call from a Microsoft employee. He had a
hazy knowledge concerning the above e-mail. While Microsoft was not
copied, and I do not know how that e-mail came to his attention, it
was not private. The Microsoft employee advised me that part of the
recent agreement between Microsoft and the Federal Department of
Justice required a time period for the public to comment. The
Microsoft employee indirectly asked me to comment to you on their
behalf. In fact, he had drafted a letter for my approval and
signature, and which I chose not to use.
I am pleased that this case is being concluded. In retrospect, I
believe a Justice Department investigation should have been
initiated, but a case should not have been filed.
My experience with commercial matters has led me to conclude
that Microsoft was aggressive in their business practices but not
illegal and in no way damaged the public.
I have been advised that Microsoft will design future versions
of Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer
makers, consumers and software developers (competitors) to promote
non-Microsoft software within Windows. The mechanism will make it
easy to add or remove access to features built into Windows or into
non-Microsoft software. Consumers will have the freedom to choose to
change their configuration at any time.
Such concession on the part of Microsoft goes well beyond what I
consider a reasonable settlement. Consumers have always had the
option to use non-Microsoft software. They have used Microsoft,
because it is better than competitive offerings.
Let's finish up the Agreement, close down the case, let
Microsoft take its unjust penalties, and get on with our business of
building a better country.
For those who may suspect that I have an ulterior motive in
writing this e-mail, let me say that I receive no special benefit
from Microsoft, have never worked for the Company, have no friends
or family that have ever worked for the Company, and that less than
2% of my stock portfolio is in Microsoft stock.
Respectfully yours,
Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
CC:Sucsy D & P,Sucsy Dr. Robert W.,Woodward Karen,Suc...
MTC-00009756
From: Greg Mader
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 12:04pm
Subject: I disagree with the proposed microsoft anti-trust
settlement
Dear DOJ,
I respectfully disagree with the proposed settlement with
Microsoft, as it allows them to continue to ``embrace and extend''
open protocols with their own proprietary extensions, and,
eventually, stomp out competition. Notice the pattern of RTF for
word processing, PPTP for Virtual Private Networks, and Kerberos for
authentication. In all of these cases, Microsoft, while claiming to
embrace an open standard, remove access and interoperability
features, and refuse to release their changes. I recommend that they
be allowed to continue as a company, but make manditory disclosers,
or ``Open Source'' their technology, supervised by a review board.
Please do not punish users of other operating systems by allowing
Microsoft to push them into oblivion. Instead, encourage Microsoft
to release specifications or source code necessary to interoperate
with their software.
Thank You,
Greg Mader
Chicago, IL
MTC-00009758
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Letter was sent to Attorney General Ashcroft and Sen. Rick
Santorum
Richard Ross
[[Page 25201]]
MTC-00009759
From: John Heuerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
18419 79th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I wanted to express my support for the settlement that was
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I feel that
this suit needs to come to an end and that this settlement is a fair
way to do so. The three-year process was not only well thought out
and well monitored, but it had all parties in mind.
This settlement will be good for the technology industry, as
well as the U.S. economy, not to mention the American consumer. The
IT sector has floundered without the innovative leadership of
Microsoft for the last three years, we will not see a turn around in
the field until we can put this litigation behind us.
I trust that you will strive to implement this settlement. It is
imperative that this suit ends, and that we can move on and focus on
more vitally important issues affecting our nation.
Sincerely,
John Heuerman
MTC-00009760
From: Walter Dominguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust
Why can't you just leave sucessful buisness alone. This company
has done more for consumers and the world in General than any of you
bias'd self asserting politicians have in Centuries!!! Get over it,
should they be punished for being sucessful and their competitors
just could not handle getting beat in the market place?? come on!!
MTC-00009761
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Isn't it time we stopped this fruitless battle in which only the
lawyers win and the consumers lose. We have far greater problems in
our country than pursuing and trying to reduce one of the greatest
companies ever established. Let's stop the whining by the
prosecutors and settle this case once and for all. Allow Microsoft
to innovate and implement the new technologies we as consumers are
waiting for.
Enough is enough!
C.J. Roum
MTC-00009762
From: James (038) Pearl Tank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Justice Department:
Communism is almost dead. One of its principles was that people
had to have a lid on how much money and/or things they could
possess; the excess had to be dispersed to the multitudes. This did
not lead to much ambition on the part of the people.
Bill Gates has had an entrepreneurial spirit and worked hard to
get his company going successfully. He has earned everything he has
and our country has benefited in many ways from his work. Let us not
put a cap on his or any else's ambition by taking away their just
deserts. Let us not revive the communistic way, but let it die in
disgrace. Let us end the wasteful spending being conducted in this
case and get on with the business of America.
Thank you for all your work.
James Tank
215 Mack Ct.
Brillion, WI 54110-1330
920-756-3474
[email protected]
MTC-00009763
From: Nick Maier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally:
Please allow me to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated anti-competitive
and criminal activity. They have both threatened and recriminated
against competitors that have elected not to collude with them in
anti-competitive activity.
The most effective way to prevent Microsoft's executives, its
employees, and it's Board of Directors from behaving in this way is
to levy a very large fine against the company. I would recommend a
fine in the amount of $1.0 Billion dollars. A fine of this amount
will serve as a major ``wake-up call'' to the company, it's
attorney's, it's employees, it's shareholders and it's Board of
Directors. This is the only way to change the anti-competitive
philosophy that is deeply ingrained in the Company.
I urge you to act forcefully to change this behavior, now. There
will be no second chances.
nm
Nicholas Maier--President
NewZing.com, Inc.
2465 East Bayshore Drive, Suite 400
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
(650) 255-7403
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009764
From: Les Brunswick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to point out one way in which the settlement that
the Department of Justice agreed to is deeply flawed. By breaking
the anti-trust laws Microsoft made enormous ilegal gains in terms of
profits and market share. Yet under the agreement it is not forced
to turn back any of these, but instead gets to keep them. The lesson
that Microsoft learns from the agreement is that it is to its own
advantage to break the law. The predictable consequence is that
Microsoft will continue to break the law in the future, in old ways
or new ones. It would not be hard to make Microsoft give up its near
monopoly in the internet browser market. It gained it by forcing
original equipment manufacturers to install Internet Explorer (which
was subsidized by its monopoly-level profits from Windows) and not
carry Netscape Navigator. The remedy could be for Internet Explorer
to be unbundled from Windows, for OEM's to be forbidden for several
years to install Internet Explorer and required to install another
web browser, and for Microsoft to be required to distribute Internet
Explorer only by selling it at a price that represents its cost of
development. Do this for two or three years and we would have real
competition restored to the browser market.
The first Microsoft anti-trust trial failed to halt the company
from continuing after the trial to abuse and expand its monopolies,
and the second trial will have the same outcome if the present
agreement is upheld.
Sincerely,
Les Brunswick
MTC-00009765
From: John Girt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
To whom it may concern:
I have been a significant user of Microsoft products for years.
The existence of a single entity that can use unrestricted power to
get its way is not in the best interest of our economy. I am a
software developer myself, but couldn't even attempt to compete with
Microsoft. I develop custom systems and use development tools from
various vendors. My issue is my inability to convince many clients
that non-Microsoft tools are better in many areas. Because of this,
these innovative products do not get a chance in the market place. I
truly believe that the best thing for consumers and Microsoft
Shareholders, is it's immediate split-up. The original split-up
suggestions are heard were way too soft. I recommend that it be
split as follows.
1.. Operating System and Networking software (including internet
tools such as Internet Explorer.)
2.. Development tools and databases (Visual Basic, compilers and
SQL/Server)
3.. Workgroup Tools (Exchange, Application Servers(.NET),
Schedule Plus)
4.. Desk-top applications (The Office Suite of productivity
tools, games, etc.) Without fair competition innovation is stifled.
As individual companies each would be able to flourish in their own
realm. And after at least two years, they could be allowed to
develop competing products. This would give them a better idea of
the effort required to compete against one of there own existing
products and would most likely result in better products for
consumers.
I have seen the quality of Microsoft products deteriorate due to
the lack of competition. You can't even get help anymore with out
talking to a staple. XP was supposed to be the best operating system
ever yet they had a security hole in it that you could drive a truck
through.
AT&T share holders who held all of there original AT&T stock
when it split have
[[Page 25202]]
increased their portfolio several fold. I think the same would
happen with Microsoft stock. My wife and I hold several hundred
shares of Microsoft stock and believe that it would help its value.
Thank You
John Girt
John Girt & Associate
(206)399-4977
[email protected]
MTC-00009766
From: REYES,RAFAEL (HP-PaloAlto,ex1)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 1:43pm
Subject: MS settlement contrary to public interest
Hello,
I am a long time IT professional. I use Microsoft products very
extensively and have done so through my career. I respect their
products and feel they have done many things well.
However, Microsoft's monopolistic practices are blatant,
longstanding, and highly damaging. I still recall the false bug MS
introduced in Windows 3.1 to cripple the superior DR DOS.
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Their bundling of products
into their Windows operating system, where they have near complete
control in the market, marches on unabated--squashing products
should have the choice to use. Internet Explorer's dominance in the
market over Netscape is a very recent case where their practices are
blatant and now with Windows XP they continue their monopoly
exercise with the bundling of their multi-media software (attacking
RealPlayer), Passport, and Hailstorm. An operating system is an
infrastructure distinct from the applications and it is long
standing good programming practice that such components be ``loosely
coupled'' to reduce unwanted interdependencies (and MS practiced
this despite the baldfaced lie that Internet Explorer could not be
removed from Windows).
It is as if General Motors owned the highways and decided
suddently to change the lane size, and not coincidentally, they are
the only ones that sell cars that fit.
The settlement does nothing to address these very serious
issues. In fact all it does is incentivize the company to extend its
monopoly into education - one of the few places which Microsoft has
not yet taken over. As an IT professional and member of the general
public I find the DOJ's settlement to be a grave disservice to the
public.
Rafael K Reyes
Senior Systems Developer
Content & Knowledge Management
Hewlett-Packard
650-960-5133
CC:'attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us'
MTC-00009767
From: Richard C. Wharton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:47pm
Subject: Proposed penalties
Hello,
I urge you to inflict severe penalties upon Microsoft for their
past illegal activities. Merley stopping them from future crimes is
insufficient. Criminals must not be allowed to keep their profits
from past crimes.
Please keep us computer users in mind. It is we who have been
saddled with a Microsoft ``tax'' for the past 10 years.
Respectfully,
Richard C. Wharton
Ibex Manufacturing, Inc.
MTC-00009768
From: David R. Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
The proposed settlement of the antitrust action against
Microsoft is unacceptable. This settlement could be compared to
citing Hitler for not having his apparatus for killing people up to
the current safety code--no safety valves for the pilots on the oven
burners.
David R. Freeman
MTC-00009769
From: Doug Bostrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:57pm
Subject: U.S. vs Microsoft
Greetings,
I'd like to respectfully register my opposition to the Justice
Department's proposed settlement of the U.S. vs. Microsoft case now
in Judge Kollar-Kotelly's court. Microsoft has been found guilty of
abuse of monopoly privileges, and Microsoft has amply demonstrated
in the past that it is organically incapable of properly absorbing
and implementing external guidance from judicial authority. The
proposed settlement does little to mitigate the former circumstance,
and in the latter is insufficiently informed by the prior experience
of the Courts and Justice Department in their dealings with
Microsoft.
Microsoft will not look upon the settlement as a benchmark upon
which to anchor their ethical roots. On the contrary, the settlement
terms will be used as the sine qua non of ethics that can be
expected of their company as identifiable under the terms of the
settlement, which also fails to properly address compliance
monitoring. Microsoft has a fundamentally different view of
acceptable civic behavior, as evinced yet again by today's (Jan. 9,
2002) disclosure that the corporation appears to have been
systematically rigging user preference polls in a major information
technology journal (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-
s2102244,00.html).
Having done a superlative job in the trials phase of this
enormously expensive proceeding, it is imperative that the
Department of Justice bring a firm and historically aware proposal
for remedy to the table. The proposed settlement does not fulfill
this mandate.
Respectully yours,
Douglas K. Bostrom
CTO Amaroq Systems, Inc.
www.amaroqsystems.com
MTC-00009770
From: Ray Kraft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:07pm
Subject: Opinion: microsoft settlement does not address problem
sufficiently
I would like to voice my concern over the proposed settlement
between Microsoft and the DOJ. Given that Microsoft has been found
*guilty* of violating antitrust law and abusing its power in the
computer operating system market, I feel that the measures outlined
in the settlement will do little to redress this problem. In fact, I
believe that some proposed ``corrective'' measures (i.e. those
addressed at schools) will in fact have just the opposite effect,
and will serve to strengthen Microsoft's monopoly position.
I would like to ask that more effective measures be proposed to
bring about the changes required to prevent Microsoft from
continuing to abuse its monopoly position.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Raymond H. Kraft, Ph.D.
Raymond Kraft, Ph.D. [email protected]
Associate Technical Fellow 425-657-1348
Applied Precision, Inc.
Issaquah Washington, USA
GnuPG Public Key Available: http://www.keyserver.net/en
MTC-00009771
From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:08pm
Subject: Wrestling the 800-pound gorilla from Redmond
Good Afternoon,
As a person working in the technology field, it is practically
impossible to go a day without hearing something about the battle
currently raging in DC. Before today I resigned myself to be a
casual observer. That was until I felt the time was approaching when
you would have to weigh in with a decision. I would like to commend
you on a valiant effort. Microsoft, I'm sure, was a surprise. They
didn't appear to be as cunning or underhanded as the Bells, but
certainly held their own. Mostly because our government was not
ready to deal with a monopoly in such a new industry. An industry
which is still growing. Next, let me say that public opinion is not
good right now. Had the 9 states not protested, there would
certainly have been a backlash. Which brings me to my point. I
cannot even begin to imagine the amount of information you have to
sift through on a daily basis, so I thought I would summarize what
the tech community sees as the issues, and what it ignores:
First, The Browser War is Dead!...and has been for some time. We
have all moved on. I realize that it was at the core of the anti-
trust suit, but it does not need to be part of the settlement. I,
like many others have been running alternative browsers on Windows
for years. In fact, this letter is being written in Opera, which
easily matches if not surpasses IE in all respects.
Second, OEM is where we should be focusing. Microsoft has such a
strangle hold on consumers because PC manufacturers are forced to
build either Windows only machines, or Windows free machines. A move
to curtail their OEM agreement would be a big step in the right
direction.
Finally, Who has really been hurt? The public?....sure, but more
than that, the
[[Page 25203]]
competition. Why not repay them. Strip some cash from Microsoft and
distribute it to the three major Linux Distributions, to Netscape,
to Opera, to Apple, to anyone who can prove they have felt a
negative impact in business. Provide money for advertising new, non-
Microsoft technology. Whatever you do....DO NOT allow them to donate
Windows PCs to schools. I'm sure you also see this as a win/win for
Microsoft as well as we do. Cash, however, would be great. Keep in
mind that most Linux users are running the OS on machines 5 years or
older. The OS is free, and the machines to run it can be collected
for pennies at local charities. A much better deal for all
concerned.
All we want is a level playing field. As much as Microsoft
threatens the stifling of innovation, you must stand firm. Everyone
knows their products have flaws, major ones, in some cases. Yet they
remain in power. Ask yourselves what measures can we put in place
that would put Microsoft back under the control of the market rather
than vise versa.
The public must regain it's will to choose. Treat this like the
tobacco settlement. The public is certainly addicted to a product
that causes harm.
I hope this helps.
Thanks for your time,
Chris Gregan
Portland, OR
MTC-00009772
From: Robin McMullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement does not address the pivotal issue, which is
that Microsoft has routinely indulged in unfair competitive
practices, and has clearly signaled its intention to continue doing
so in the future. It is difficult not to conclude that the court is
either afraid of Microsoft for some reason, or expects to benefit
directly from its own vapid decision.
MTC-00009773
From: Jim Kostrava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:22pm
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft Case
To: United States Department of Justice,
The purpose of this email is to encourage you to settle for once
and for all the Microsoft Case.
The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest free-
market educational organization in the world, founded by Leonard E.
Read in 1946. FEEA is monthly magazine, Ideas on Liberty, is the
longest continuously published magazine dedicated to individual
liberty in the United States. FEE is a nonprofit organization
dedicated to free markets, private property, self-reliance, limited
government, and the rule of law.
Since 1946 our organization has been supported entirely by
private voluntary contributions. We receive no money from the
government, nor would we accept money if offered. On behalf of our
4,500 supporters and the tens of thousands of people who have
supported us over the past 55 years that are passionate about
individual liberty, I urge you to settle this particular case. I
also encourage you to limit the intrusion of government in business
in general. Barriers to initiative and endless litigation are the
anchors on the economy and are the greatest threat to the prosperity
of all U.S. citizens.
In liberty,
James E. Kostrava, CAE
Vice President for External Relations
Foundation for Economic Education
30 South Broadway
Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533
(914) 591-7230, ext. 330
Email- [email protected] mailto:jkostrava@ fee.org>
Michigan: (989) 687-6367 Fax: (989) 687-9088
FEE Web sites:
www.fee.org http://www.fee.org>
www.cliches.org http://www.cliches.org>
www.freespeaker.org http://www.freespeaker.org>
www.feenationalconvention.org http://www.feenational
convention.org>
www.laissezfairebooks.com http://www.laissezfairebooks.com>
MTC-00009774
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case without any further litigation.
I believe this lawsuit has been harmful to consumers and the
American economy. The very day it was announced the stock market
went down and every time there is a negative statement about
Microsoft it goes down again.
It is obvious that those wealthy competitors of Microsoft who
oppose the settlement don't care about the economy and welfare of
our country as they oppose Microsoft giving the poor schools and
children computers so they have the same opportunity as children in
more well do do schools to learn and prepare themselves for their
futures. Please put a stop to all litigations of this case.
Thank you,
Evelyn Moser
MTC-00009775
From: PETER CAPPOLA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement !
Settle this Case!
I believe this case should never have gotten this far. It should
be thrown out of court.
Let Microsoft Innovate and Grow this Industry. Consumers and the
Our Country Benifit!
The software industry is probably the strongest industry in this
country. Instead of promoting it, its being torn apart by jeleous
compeditors of Microsoft. Microsoft is the leading cause of the
gains in technology this industry has had. Its speculation to say
other businesses or competition would have emerged if Microsoft
wasn't agressive in their innovative goals. The Industry could just
as well be ten years behind if they didn't persue their innovative
goals. Bundling is a good thing. I worked for 17+ years for a
computer Mfg Co. and know the negative results of having to get
different software products to work together and having to install
software patches. This case is not in the CONSUMERS BEST INTEREST,
its the compeditors who want to stop Microsoft from being succesful.
What company every went in business to be Number Two!! Whats wrong
with chairing for your own team to be the best!
Why is Microsoft to be expected to have to write software to its
competitions advantage and product and not specific to their own,
Apple Computer has been doing that for years.
Let Microsoft Innovate and Grow this Industry. Consumers and the
Our Country Benifit!
MTC-00009776
From: Jim Smilanich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:42pm
Subject: I oppose the current settlement deal
Sirs;
I have worked for US Bank for 6 years in the Network department
as a network architect. Before that, I worked for Merrill
Corporation for 7 years as the lead network designer and network
management specialist. During most of that period I have supported
and used Microsoft products in a wide variety of ways. I have also
had the opportunity to compare and contrast them to Microsoft's
competition.
I regard myself as about as hardcore a free market advocate as
there can be. I believe, however, that a free market works only when
all involved in it do so from an ethical viewpoint that embraces
fair play. It is my contention that Microsoft's management has no
conception of anything that even remotely resembles an ethical
viewpoint. During my entire career in IT, I've watched with dismay
as Microsoft eliminated one competitor after another in one market
segment after another. In my experience, the finding of fact barely
scratched the surface of the damage that Microsoft has done to the
computer industry over the years. They did not do this by the
quality of their product or by competing head to head. As the trial
demonstrated quite clearly, they did so by arm twisting PC vendors,
buying up the competition, predatory pricing tactics, and on and on
and on.
Microsoft has almost gleefully gone back to their old ways since
the proposed settlement was announced. Brian Valentine's leaked
emails (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23518.html) urging
his sales force to spy on their customer base, their manipulation of
a ZDNet Java vs. .Net poll (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-
s2102244,00.html), Microsoft's announced pricing and licensing
changes, and other stories all point to a monopolist company with
absolutely no fear of the Federal government. None of the news that
I have read since the original finding of fact shows any remorse
over their actions. None of it even demonstrates an awareness that
the company has been convicted of a crime!
Please, take the high road. Find a punishment that fits the
crime. The wholesale destruction of dozens of companies and market
segments deserves a harsh and swift response.
[[Page 25204]]
Thank you for your time,
Jim Smilanich
MTC-00009777
From: Kevin Bischoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Company Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Microsoft Company has been in battle with its competitors in
the marketplace and unfortunately with the federal government for
too long. It is good news to the industry and to the nation's
economy to know we are on the cusp of closure to at least the
federal lawsuit.
During this open public comment period I want to take the
opportunity to support your Department in the fine job that you have
done to find the compromise and reasonable end to this long drawn
out million dollar experience. Please consider the settlement
sufficient and close the federal government's role in this
competitive war. I support your settlement proposal.
Sincerely,
Terry R. Spencer
Utah State Senator
District 22
MTC-00009778
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The Microsoft settlement was reasonable,fair and good for the
consumer. HOWEVER the special interests are attempting to derail
this settlement and prolong the litigation simply to benefit the few
wealthy competitors of Microsoft. This is political posturing by the
few States Attorney Generals who refused to sign on to the
settlement. The only beneficiaries are the attorneys involved. The
continuance of this case is NOT in the interests of the consumers
for whom this law was originally crafted. The current settlement IS
in the public interest. Please close the case.
Margaret M. Lewis
MTC-00009779
From: Stephen Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
The anti-trust laws are a Marxist, pseudo-scientific danger to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their standard of
competition is equality, an economically destructive situation in
which the most productive people will be destroyed for the alleged
sake of the least productive. It is a nihilist attack on production
and human life. Inequality is an economic good. Economics should
benefit the individual as an individual, not equality, society or
power-lust.
Stephen Grossman
MTC-00009780
From: mjh48060
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:04pm
Subject: Regarding the Microsoft settlement
After reading the details of the settlement I reached the
opinion that a lot more must be done in order to insure that
Microsoft doesn't abuse it's monopoly on the desktop operating
system market. I've made an opinion regarding Windows XP Home
Edition to friends and family and after discovering the e-mail
address to the Department of Justice, I thought the comments I made
to friends and family might be relevant here as well.
If you're looking for a recommendation from me about Windows XP
Home Edition, you won't see one from me. After playing around with
it for a while I found a lot of issues....
1. Internet Explorer is as unstable in XP as it is in Me / 98.
2. Older DOS games either don't run well or don't run at all.
3. Some Windows games don't run well or at all. (Including both
32 bit and those older Win3.1 16 bit stuff)
4. Printing is slower if you're doing anything else besides.
5. Intermittant connection problems with the modem.
6. Losing modem settings (Big Issue!)
7. Recovery tools are either rudimentary or nonexistant. (Worse
than Windows Millenium Edition)
8. Still crashes from time to time--Microsoft says 'Bad
Hardware' I say
``Software Bugs''
--* XP Home Edition still can't make it to a day. Linux has so
far made it to 1 day, and 17 hours and is still going. Nothing wrong
with the hardware I say. ;-)
9. It's claims of being the most secure operating system are a
total lie! Network listening ports are open and unclosable--For
example: Remote Procedure Call and Universal Plug and Play. Firewall
is now mandatory for safety reasons I'm also noting the Universal
Plug and Play security hole found just before Christmas.
Interestingly it didn't show up on the Windows Update website until
three weeks later.
10. XP complains about deleting files in use when they're
clearly --not-- in use! (Time to reboot.)
11. That 8 second shift lock accessory feature that totally
messes up the CAPS LOCK function. (Enabled by default.)
12. XP sometimes refuses to read the CD-ROM (Time to reboot.)
13. Microsoft compressed folders are a joke. Doesn't open on
some zip files. Complains about file corruption that just isn't
true.
14. The new Windows look is nothing really special nor really
customizable. Unix based operating systems were doing it better
first.
15. Opening a pictures folder shows a link under Folder tasks
called: Order Prints Online. (Bad, bad form, Microsoft! Unlike some
people, I order *-- NOTHING--* online if it involves a credit card.
Surely online credit card theft still happens. )
16. Product Activation. My issue with it is having to call
Microsoft to ask for an activation code everytime I upgrade or have
to reinstall XP. I feel that I simply don't need to ask permission
to use something that I've paid for.
17. Desktop screen disappears spontaneously and randomly when
opening folders. ($80 billion dollars in their pocket and they still
can't create a decent GUI shell since Windows 95? Whatever excuse it
is I don't want to hear it! I want to drag and drop. Not cut, paste
and pray! What's the problem with that?)
18. Plug and Play is still problematic.
19. That general stupid AOL feeling I get. However I like my
face and name on top of the Start Menu. However the user interface
is far too dumbed down for my taste. I can still use the classic
interface and remove that AOL feeling but I lose my face, too.
20. XP Home Full version is overpriced. Upgrade version could be
more reasonable, too.
21. Upgrading over 98 / Me causes lots and lots of problems with
breaking programs already installed beforehand. Every program broken
has to be reinstalled. Best idea for this problem is to repartition
and install XP on a new partition and leave the old 98 / Me intact.
(Dual booting gives a lot of flexibility with new and old stuff but
it's also a hard drive hog not to mention a huge waste of time to
set up!)
22. EZ CD Creator 4 screws up XP. Roxio's recommended upgrade is
way overpriced! And you --still-- have to download a patch! I was
never even told about the issue nor was I able to find out about the
issue with the Microsoft web site until after the damage was done.
(Smells like a dirty marketing trick to me.)
23. Product support is given but on the condition that you have
to sign up for a .NET Passport first. (Which is absolutely
rediculous! It --NEVER-- said that on the packaging!)
24. The recovery console is useless in a real problem.
25. I cannot remove Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows
Messenger, Windows Media Player, and a lot of other Microsoft
programs that are installed by default as well as the loss of hard
disk space incurred from the use or lack of use of those programs.
26. I want to choose what kind of operating system I want on my
computer when I buy a computer. So far the only way I can buy a
computer and have a choice of operating system is to buy the
components necessary to put together a computer from different
sources so I don't have to purchase a Microsoft operating system.
For example, I may want Linux or FreeBSD or BeOS or whatever may be
available but if I buy components to assemble a computer from one
source. I'm told that I need to purchase a Microsoft operating
system. I simply do not have to accept that in my opinion. Simply
put, I feel that as a customer I was misled, lied to, and ultimately
swindled out of money when I installed XP Home Edition. I also feel
that Microsoft's business practices are completely horrible and
warrant punitive measures to keep the company in check up to and
including splitting the company as necessary to bring real
innovation to computer technology as a whole.
[[Page 25205]]
Sincerely yours,
Michael Hickey
MTC-00009781
From: Donna Ulrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:06pm
Subject: Get off the case
Dear Friends,
We've got more important things to do. I'm sure Microsoft is not
perfect but then neither is the government. Let's build our
families. Let's reduce poverty, feed the hungry--around the world.
Let's focus on more important things.
Donna Ulrich
10770 S. Voyles Road
Borden, IN 47106-7615
MTC-00009782
From: Mark Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:06pm
Subject: The current settlement with MicroSoft is bad for
competition and for the nation
Hello!
MicroSoft is evil. That is a given. Given all the lies they have
said in court over the years, you cannot trust anythng they say.
Thus, how can you trust the settlement?
MicroSoft was probably going to give 1 billion dollars to
schools anyways. Then the settlement says they have to, which
doesn't make any sense, because they were probably going to do it
anyways. MicroSoft has always tried to grab the educational
institutions, because when people graduate from high school or
college, they will stick with the software they know.
Thus:
1. They were already going to do it anyways.
2. It inteferes with Apple's ability to compete in the education
market. MicroSoft is entirely evil and I would prefer, be destroyed.
I would like to see it get destroyed under a competitive market,
rather than physcial force. I like to win my battles fairly. Given
the current republican administration, please do what makes the most
sense for a competitive market, which you should understand since
you are republican, and just don't so stuff that benefits the rich
fat republicans/corporations who have no regard for our nation, just
their pocketbook. I want business to thrive for those who deserve
it, not those who are able to bribe/lie/cheat/steal their way into
power because they have a lot fo money.
Thanks!
Mark
MTC-00009783
From: JOHN T MUDGE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:43pm
Subject: Comment re: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
Microsoft is clearly guilty of illegal conduct--that has been
decided in court. I, personally, do not like either Windows or
Explorer. Even so, their products define the standard. That battle
is over (I use a Mac). Nonetheless, the Court should dismiss State
objections. The State AG's are clearly protecting in-state
businesses or, in at least one case, purely vindictive. I am amazed
they even have standing! If the noose is tightened even more, it
sets a poor precedent to harass even more businesses.
Unfortunately, this country is coming closer to getting all the
government for which we are paying!
Glad to get this off my chest.
John T. Mudge
Chehalis, WA 98532
MTC-00009784
From: Brent Smith
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 2:10pm
Subject: Opposition of Settlement
Hello,
I am writing today to express my personal displeasure with the
settlement terms between the Department of Justice and Microsoft
corporation. I have been a user of Microsoft products since 1985 and
I'm even have status of a Microsoft Certified Professional using
Windows NT. Over the years as consultant and a long time user of
these products I honestly have to admit that I make a living trying
to find workarounds to make products work for my customers with the
windows operating system. For this I thank Microsoft for having a
product that isn't as stable as let say UNIX or the Mac OS9.
If we look at history--look at what happened after the DOJ split
up IBM. IBM is still a very large company, but because of
competition (thanks to the DOJ) much of our products are developed
better today. I feel that there is continued motivation to compete
and have a quality product when competition is present.
Thank you.
Brent Smith
Client Manager
RMRS-ECHO
www.rmrs.com--website
[email protected]
MTC-00009785
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:18pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
I want to register my concurrance with the DOJ's recent
Settlement action. Based on the information provided via the press
the terms seem fair and reasonable. I think it is important to
finalize the settlement to allow everyone involved to move forward
with some predicability. Additionally, the software/internet service
playing field is and has evolved so quickly and constantly, I am
confident that with the system checks to be put in place, the free
markets will allow businesses and consumers to choose the most
appropriate technologies and providers for the future.
Furthermore, I think it is very important that Microsoft not be
singled out as being anti-competitive. All its' competitors are
likewise working to gain any and all advantages. To do so will risk
constraining innovation here in the U.S., and might help a business,
particularly a non-homegrown business gain a competitive advantage
they did not deserve or earn.
Bob Nelson Geneva, IL
MTC-00009786
From: David Benander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
I want you people to understand that you must LEAVE MICROSOFT
ALONE!!! You must not punish companies and creators like Bill Gates
for being more successful than their competitors. That's why it's
called competition! Someone wins and someone loses. And in so
winning, Gates and his team have helped make PC use so inexpensive
that we, the consumers, can all use them. Microsoft is PRIVATE
PROPERTY, it has a RIGHT to its profits, and you have NO right to
confiscate them.
David Benander
194 Bay Lane
Centerville, MA 02632
MTC-00009787
From: jeremy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:22pm
Subject: public comment on Microsoft anti-trust case
Ms. Renata Hesse--
As a citizen of the United States I'm very disturbed by the
settlement proposal of the Microsoft antitrust case. Given the
verdicts of a federal judge and federal appeals court judges
affirming the basic guilt of Microsoft as a monopoly, I think the
proposed DOJ settlement does NOT go far enough to remedy the
situation. As a consumer I believe my choices have been limited by
the monopoly and am disappointed the settlement does little to
change that fact. Moreover, I'm concerned by a weak enforcement
mechanism to assure the enforcement of the provisions, ineffective
as they are. Even rigidly enforced, I have grave doubts the
provisions would accomplish anything positive.
I suspect the Bush administration is concerned about expending
taxpayer money in litigation. At this point, if this settlement were
approved, I would think it a bigger waste of money; to have come so
far and proved so much only to opt for a weak settlement that does
not prevent Microsoft from leveraging its monopoly in the future is
futile and non-sensical. To make the investment worthwhile, as a US
citizen, I think a new settlement should be put in play that is
designed to prevent Microsoft from leveraging its monopoly to the
detriment of competition. At this point, only a new, tougher remedy
proposal would make the litigation worthwhile and useful to me as a
citizen of the United States, a consumer, and personal computer
user. Additionally, my concern is that given the present economic
situation, the Bush administration is concerned that by pursuing a
tough remedy that it would hurt a big, successful company and
therefore do more damage to a fragile economy. Personally, I believe
that by breaking up Microsoft it would unlock more shareholder
value. The sum of all shares in the new companies would be worth
more than the present value of one Microsoft. Additionally, I
believe it would create more jobs in a hurting tech sector as more
[[Page 25206]]
programming and administrative staff are hired by the new companies.
I also think it would envigorate the tech sector as more small
companies find an atmosphere where they can compete and introduce
new products and technologies that have a better chance at success.
In short, please pursue a tougher remedy that will prevent Microsoft
from leveraging its monopoly and create more competition and
consumer choice. Please reconsider your position and advocate a
stronger remedy that will truly bring the technology industry to a
new level of innovation and competition.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Wilmarth
MTC-00009788
From: Tim Bryce
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/9/02 3:41pm
Subject: Not in Favor of Settling with Microsoft
Renata B. Hesse
I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version,
Windows XP. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for a number of
years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic marketing
tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related products
have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments by
Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe the
opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually
discourages competition and stunts technological growth.
Consequently, I do not believe the Federal Government's proposed
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is adequate and that
stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such tactics
from being used in the future. In other words, I applaud the efforts
of the various State Attorney Generals to seek stricter measures.
Sincerely,
Tim Bryce
Editor, OS/2 CONNECT
http://www.os2ss.com/connect/
[email protected]
Palm Harbor, FL, USA
MTC-00009789
From: Richard M. DeLio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Re. the Microsoft settlement, please convey my views to the
court as follows:
As an Information Systems Consultant and a heavy user of
Microsoft and non-Microsoft PC products, as well as software on
other platforms, I can honestly say that Microsoft has brought much
more positive progress to the information systems user community
than any other computer hardware or software company. With regard to
many of the points brought out in trial, I would offer the following
comments:
1. Monopoly is a matter of frame of reference. If you ask if
Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system business for Intel-
based computers, they do. If you base the definition on the absolute
number of computers, irrespective of size, Microsoft may still have
a monopoly. I believe both of these definitions to be incorrect. I
would propose that for a monopoly to exist, it should be based on
total computing utilization throughout the US or the world. Yes,
Microsoft has a large number of installed operating systems, and
some are installed on computers with relatively high raw computing
power. But many of these computers are used for a short period of
time each day or few days and then often just to send e-mail or surf
the Internet, clearly not ``computing.'' If one were to compare the
operating systems installed against the utilized computing power, I
would doubt any monopoly exists. On PC's doing very little computing
there are a very large number of Windows installations, but on much
larger, heavily used machines you would find IBM, Sun and Hewlett-
Packard installations. Simply put, Microsoft does not have a
monopoly based on the total utilization of computing power. This is
a very important difference.
2. Microsoft competitors have argued that Windows pricing is
higher than it should be. I would counter that most people pay far
less, through OEM installation of MS Windows, than the suggested
retail price, or even the ``street'' retail upgrade price. However,
on pricing, I believe we need to place things in perspective. For
anywhere from $40-100, based on the version of Windows installed,
the consumer receives a technically advanced product which will be
used on average 4-5 years before a new computer is purchased. In
comparison, a pair of brand-name sneakers cost more than Windows and
will likely be wreaked within 1 year. There is not a single consumer
product of any type on the market today that provides the
functionality of Windows in comparison with its cost over the life
of the product.
In addition, Microsoft, unlike any other computer industry
company in the last year, increased its research and development
budget to provide even greater benefit to the consumer in the
future. The money spent by consumers on Microsoft products provided
both immediate benefits to the consumers, greater in value than any
other computer product, and an investment in future benefits.
3. Much has been said of Microsoft's supposedly predatory
practices re. Netscape Communications. Nothing has been said of
Netscape's actions during this period. Prior to Microsoft's release
of Internet Explorer (MS IE), Netscape had been giving away its
Navigator Internet browser. When it effectively had a monopoly in
the browser arena, just prior to the release of MS IE, Netscape
announced that they would be charging for this product in the
future. Essentially, they created a monopoly and then attempted
predatory pricing. And, the price they wanted to charge was
approximately what most people were paying at that time for all of
Microsoft Windows, a product with far great functionality, and
therefore value, for the money. I should also add that the Netscape
personnel did not develop their product from scratch. They had been
working on an Internet browser in a college environment, and simply
left, formed a company, made a few changes and released it under the
Netscape name.
4. Microsoft did not initially try to compete with Netscape. In
fact, Microsoft competes in a very small number of computer software
product areas, choosing instead to offer Windows as an open base on
which thousands of products can operate. Netscape personnel,
however, announced at trade show after trade show that they would
``destroy'' Microsoft Windows as a platform. The Internet would be
the new platform--actually a ridiculous idea, like saying if mass
transit had great schedules we would all get rid of our cars.
Microsoft attempted to work with Netscape and when that went
nowhere, it decided to offer a better product and cut off the
Netscape attempt at predatory pricing.
5. Microsoft competitors have argued that Internet Explorer was
a standalone application and should never have been put into the
Windows operating system. I believe this is wrong. I believe there
is a very simple test for what is appropriate in an operating system
and what is not. If a program creates or manipulates data, like a
word processor or spreadsheet program it is an application and
should not be added to an operating system. If a program simply
displays information or manipulates data at the file level, e.g.
copying or moving an entire file, it should be included in an
operating system. In fact, the only times Microsoft has violated
this approach was when they provided a very rudimentary word
processor in Windows as a convenience to users, but not to replace a
complete word processor, and a simple e-mail program (which still
needed an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to be usable).
Regardless of this, anyone who wished to have Netscape Navigator
as their default Internet browser could do so, simply by specifying
that within the program of their Internet Service Provider or, even
more simply, by placing the Navigator program on the Start-Programs
list as he/she would do with any other program--word processor,
spreadsheet, photo editing, etc.--and then having Navigator
telephone the ISP.
6. But at the heart of this litigation from the beginning has
been the hypocrisy and manipulation by Microsoft's competitors
combined with a bluntly terrible defense by Microsoft. The
competition has used the government to try to compete against
Microsoft rather than relying on an open marketplace. And, the
dissenting nine states are still being used by Microsoft's
competitors. I would ask the current judge to ask one simple
question regarding these nine states: Would they be suing Microsoft
it Microsoft were based in their states. I strongly doubt that. They
don't care one iota for their consumers; they only care about the MS
competitors who are based in their states and exercise political
influence.
Competitors like AOL, Oracle, Sun and IBM have long complained
that Microsoft has produced mediocre products and did not deserve
its success. Yet, with the exception of Oracle, Microsoft's products
often exceeded the functionality and value of those provided by the
competition. The consumer is not stupid. Offered a better product,
with better pricing, the consumer will go with the
[[Page 25207]]
better product. Often the consumer will go with the better product
even without better pricing, since we are not talking about large
sums of money for these products (tens of dollars to hundreds, not
thousands).
Competitors have complained that Windows is a closed system and
source code should be opened for all to see or modify. The truth is
that Windows is the most open operating system ever produced. If it
were not, there would not be literally thousands of non-Microsoft
products operating very successfully under Windows today.
7. The bottom line of all of this, however, is that Microsoft
has been successful because they have provided a good, reasonably
priced product, which is an open environment on which thousands of
computer programs are available. In addition, Microsoft has provided
a platform with integration of subsystems which should be in an
operating system, yet, not eliminating the ability of the user to
run alternative products.
I urge the court to find in favor of Microsoft and the
settlement with the Department of Justice, a settlement which, I
believe, is even more burdensome on Microsoft than it should be.
Thank you.
Richard M. DeLio
31 Manor Drive
Ramsey, NJ 07446
201-825-8098
MTC-00009790
From: Scott Bicknell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There is much chatter about this case--most of it saying that
the DOJ is caving-in to Microsoft. I have to agree. And while there
should be a penalty, I also realise that this wish is a pipe dream.
This case is moving toward dismissal. I understand Microsoft has
already been convicted, but it seems after the conviction was handed
down that the court said, ``Oops, that's not what we meant to do.
Now you boys go out back and find a way to fix this mistake. We use
too much Microsoft software around here to deal with breaking up a
company we do so much business with.''
And that is the crux of the matter, whether the courts, the DOJ,
Microsoft, or anyone else wants to admit it. As long as major pieces
of judicial infrastructure (the software used to administer the
judicial system) comes from one company, Microsoft, then the courts
will never have the guts to do their job honestly. They will
continue to pretend to themselves and the world that they are immune
to bias.
Scott Bicknell
815 Creek Dr.
San Jose, CA 95125
(408) 266-9692
MTC-00009791
From: Del Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:49pm
Subject: end clinton's
Please end clinton's anti-trust law abuse. Microsoft has done
more for computing than any other company--leave them alone. No more
law suits against them.
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Del W. Gardner
Medford NJ
MTC-00009792
From: AVCS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:50pm
Subject: Anti-trust law abuse
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Let us end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
MTC-00009793
From: tatro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
End the Clinton-era Anti-trust Law abuse, please. It was a waste
of time and money.
Elwood & Ellen Tetrault,
907 S 19 St.,
Grand Forks, N.D. 58201
MTC-00009794
From: Bryan W. Headley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
Dear Sirs,
From what I understand, the bulk of the Microsoft punishment
involves the donation of computers and software to school districts.
As someone who lives in a school district that's teetering on
consolidation (e.g., bankrupcy), let me tell you that giving school
districts computers is not a beneficial act. With more computers,
classrooms either have to be built or expanded to handle the extra
equipment. More teachers have to be hired, and this is money we do
not have. To be honest with you, we don't have the money to do
extracurricular activities (e.g., football, basketball, etc.)
This is like other well-intentioned attempts to help schools: in
Illinois, we have the state lottery benefitting schools by helping
on infrastructure costs. The Americans with Disabilities act hurt,
as the costs of making the existing plants accessible wasn't covered
by this. And so, I ask you: what good are plants (buildings) when
you cannot afford the headcount? When you cannot afford the
materials? A lot of people do not understand how taxation works, in
regards to municipal governments. Looking at my area, you'd assume
there's a sufficient tax base. Not so: we have densly-populated
residential, with little industry. So, where's the tax base for that
school district? The base for students is evident.
So, the act of public service is not beneficial. Unless we're
talking about schools that are well-financed, but for some reason do
not have computer education. I cannot imagine schools operating in
such a vacuum. Having mentioned industries, let's expound on the
behaviour Microsoft has been accused (and found guilty of.) By
engaging in predatory tactics, Microsoft weaken many of their
competitors. Consider WordPerfect, once of Orem, UT. They used to
have a successful product; their employees and they were in a
position where they can contribute to the economic health of their
neighborhoods. Now gone, who has stepped up to take their place in
filling the tax coffers?
Now, let's go into what I'm certain a lot of writers have
pointed out to you: allowing Microsoft to pay off their debt to
society in Microsoft software. This is more effective in
establishing brand identity with the next generation of software
users than any advertising I know of. What's the cost of the
software? Are they writing this software off at full retail cost? Do
you know how much it costs to mass produce CDs in quantity? Pennies.
I'm trying to think of something as distasteful as this
settlement. This is not an exact simile, but I have to think of a
dope pusher being forced to give free illicit drugs to children.
What? You think those children WON'T want more dope? And, heh! This
pusher gets to write off the expense, having been directed to
performing this community service by judge.
If you are of a mind to go for a financial settlement, do like
you did with the tobacco companies: make the company settle in cash.
How the states opt to use the cash is something we can work on
ourselves. I might never see any of that money appear in my school
district, but we might get better roads and be able to attract/
retain industries. By the way, regards to these computers: where are
they coming from? China, Taiwan, Indonesia? That hardly helps out
American manufacturing firms who make computers. And you know, the
healthier these industries are, the better able they are to
contribute to our local economy. As it stands now, we'd be better
served if you forced the Microsoft board of directors to personally
take roadside cleaning responsibilities for a 1/2 mile off of an
interstate in Seattle.
Thank you for you time and consideration,
Bryan W. Headley
[email protected]
MTC-00009795
From: gandamartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As two tax-paying citizens, we believe that the resources of the
Justice Dept can be put to better use than pursuing Microsoft.
Thank you,
Mr & Mrs Gene Martin
MTC-00009796
From: Ian Nowland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Hello!
I am a computer programmer. I (and all my programming friends
and coworkers) have to work several times harder to get anything
done because Microsoft's products are usually much more shoddy than
any other software out there, since they know they can rum out such
products because they have such a huge market domination. Please
break up Microsoft so that they are forced to be competitive and
thus try and meet competition standards.
Ian Nowland
MTC-00009797
From: Andrew Davis
[[Page 25208]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement with federal government
6308 Woodcreek Trail
Fort Worth, Texas 76179
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement
between the federal government and Microsoft. It is with sincere
hope that there will be no further litigation at the federal level.
Taking into account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did not
get off with a slap on the wrist. In fact, Microsoft is left to make
several significant changes to the ways that they now handle
business. For example, Microsoft has agreed to design future
versions of Windows, beginning with an interim release of Windows
XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers,
consumers, and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software
within Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove
access to features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software.
Consumers will have the freedom to choose to change their
configuration at any time.
With the many terms of the agreement, it is time to put this
case to rest. The settlement offers a strong resolution to this
suit, and I look forward to seeing the settlement implemented.
Sincerely,
Andrew Davis
MTC-00009798
From: pankavichjm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the it is in the public interest to settle with
the Microsoft litigation. Personally, I find it hard to see how they
were in violation at all. As far as I am concerned I always had the
choice of using them or not.
However, I do believe that AOL is in some kind of violation in
this respect. Whenever I load a program that also offers AOL I
refuse the AOL but no matter I still get their program on my screen
and it does start to load. I also think that they are in violation
when they include free programs in cereals, etc. and send them
through the mail. They are bordering on being a nuisance.
Joan M. Pankavich
MTC-00009800
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is time to go on with more important business than litigation
in this case. The Dept. Of Justice proposed settlement is fair for
consumers and the company. This case has been detrimental to
Microsoft and its employees. The vagaries have caused many employees
to quit and as shareholders we do not see the drive to innovate the
company was famous for. If the various State Atty. who object the
settlement proposed by DoJ like to see a second rate company survive
I believe we should have recourse for such stupid behavior. I, a
small consumer, am perfectly happy with the product developed by
Microsoft.
Respectfully submitted
Axel Hunold
MTC-00009801
From: Ruth Zdanowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice:
We think that the prolonged, ongoing litigation against
Microsoft, by a few special interest groups with biased agendas to
promote their own products, needs to come to an end.
The economy has suffered enough with stock market blows to the
``tech'' industry. Get on with business.
A settlement was offered; we think it is extremely generous. Get
on with business and life! The states that will not compromise
continue to mire the entire industry, which affects all of the U.S.
economy and attitude.
Our capitalistic society depends upon survival of the best
product (i.e. fittest) to increase competition and innovation. Fault
sits in the laps of those who have not produced a good product--or
at least one a consumer majority is motivated to purchase.
It is essential in a democratic/capitalistic society that we all
work hard to succeed and be innovative. The continued ``whining'' by
those who refuse to settle reminds us of a sport team that complains
about everybody else when they lose. A team either makes the right
number of baskets or leave the basketball court. Is our nation's
justice department going to support a business welfare system where
the stronger companies have to ``pay'' lackluster companies (or the
states that house them) in order to subsidize them?
If Microsoft's competitors spent half as much time and money on
innovation and subsequently better products, as they do hiring
attorneys to whine for them, they might actually become successful.
It is time to stop supporting the so-called ``victims'' who want
easy buck$$.
PLEASE: Stop this muckraking!
Sincerely,
Consumers and small business owners who appreciate quality,
manufacturing responsibility, and accountability,
Jim & Ruth Zdanowicz
MTC-00009802
From: Bruce F McKenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:36pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
As a Senior Vice President of a large financial institution, I
am greatly concerned about the Proposed Final Settlement for
Microsoft with the Dept. of Justice. My primary concern, as far as I
understand the agreement, is that it does not end Microsoft's
existing monopoly or punish sufficiently past violations of
antitrust laws (as the courts have affirmed), does not adequately
address anticompetitive behavior identified by the appeals court and
does not have sufficient provisions for enforcement of the
agreement. Overall, it's hard for me to see how this is in the
public's interest.
Sincerely,
Bruce F. McKenzie
Northern Trust Company
MTC-00009803
From: Bob and Ruth Ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a U. S. citizen, I am strongly opposed to a continuation of
the lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., one of the finest Corporations
in this Country.
I am particularly critical of our Justice system which permits a
four year lawsuit to continue, particularly since the Federal
Government seemed to arrive at a satisfactory settlement, which then
permits the 'States'' to continue this process.
The Federal Government and Microsoft agreed to permit oversight
of their operations, and this should be sufficient. The cost to all
parties must be astronomical, and to continue this suit is certainly
detrimental and costly. The Federal Government should rein in the
``States'', and finalize this once and for all.
Robert A. Ferguson
MTC-00009804
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is fair and equitable and in the best
interests of the consumer. It is time for this litigation to be
ended.
Richard Ketover
Boca Raton, FL
MTC-00009805
From: Dennis Ertzbischoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:55pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sirs:
For what's it's worth, here is my 2 cents about the proposed
breakup. . .DON'T!!!
In the 1930's and 40's, the U.S. Government prohibited Motorola
from entering the land-line based communications industry by
connecting to it with its radio-based systems, thus protecting AT&T.
Think, where would all of our technology be today if the government
had not interfered and had let the Free Market work its magic?
Today, we have the most successful software provider in the
world facing a government action. When will bureaucrats learn that
they cannot make proper decisions when it comes to market forces--no
matter if they, the bureaucrats, are pro-competition or pro-
monopoly? Stay out of business and market decisions. . .LAISSEZ-
FAIRE.
Technology, especially, moves extremely quickly and no one,
repeat, no one can stop that from happening.
Let's get on with the business of ADVANCING civilization, not
retarding it.
Hey, get out there and read WEALTH OF NATIONS, ATLAS SHRUGGED,
and WIZARD: THE STORY OF NICHOLA TESLA.
[[Page 25209]]
Then, let your mind work and see how narrow the viewpoints of
bureaucrats generally are and how those viewpoints have damaged
mankind's creativity.
As for Mr. Gates. . .GO, BILL, GO!!!
Sincerely;
Dennis Ertzbischoff
Detroit
MTC-00009806
From: Tricia (038) Ambrose Treacy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop the insanity. Microsoft has been open to a fair settlement
in this case. The pro-longed wranglings of a few special interest
groups, and/or a few companies that are anti-Microsoft is costing
the taxpayers too much money--AND IT ONLY STIFLES CREATIVITY,
INNOVATION and COMPETITION. Please put an end to further litigation
and get on with the resolution.
Tricia Treacy
MTC-00009807
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:01pm
Please end this ridiculous lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft
has made us better and we go after them.
Let's just stick with finding Osoma Bin Ladan. He's only
interested in making us worse.
Thanks, Lezlie Baska
MTC-00009808
From: Ed Harman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My letter is attached . . . thank you.
CC: [email protected]@inetgw,Ed HotMail
Edward Harman 14 Pinewood Avenue
Ephrata, PA 17522
January 8, 2002
Attorney General Mr. John Ashcroft
Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The recent lawsuit in the antitrust case between Microsoft and
the U.S. Department of Justice, which finally came to an end in
November, reflected personal vendettas from competitors and
politicians alike. I strongly believe litigation never should have
begun in the first place, but I am happy to see that Microsoft will
not be broken up. It does, however, trouble me to see that this
settlement is mired in procedural sludge. I ask you to enact this
coherent and important settlement as soon as possible.
Microsoft has been a leader in innovation and technology in the
industry and has set the standards for fast paced growth. Microsoft
continually delivers new products and services that are unmatched by
its peers. Being the hardest working and most creative company in
the technology sector should not be a negative mark against the
Microsoft name.
I look forward to no further litigation against Microsoft and
urge the US Justice Department to convince the nine states
withholding to discontinue their efforts against Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Edward Harman
CC: Sen. Rick Santorum
MTC-00009809
From: Derek Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft's Windows XP & privacy
Our state AG's office encouraged me to forward my complaints to
you regarding MS Windows XP. my complaint isn't about the current
issues with MS, but with their new Windows XP product. I believe
their activation policy and procedure is an unwarrented intrusion
into my privacy, and my right to control my own computer as I see
fit. When XP is installed, it takes an inventory of your computer's
hardware, and then sends this information to MS, which then
activates your copy of XP.
They say no personally identifying information is sent.
That's troubling because if you register your copy with MS, they
can easily match activation codes with personal information
contained in a registration data base. Given MS's behavior over the
last two decades, it is not unreasonable to be dubious that MS will
not attempt to so. There is no assurance , except their word, that
they will not do it.
Another problem comes when you change hardware in your computer.
If I put in a new cpu, memory modules or motherboard, XP deactivates
itself until you call MS and get a re-activation number.
My complaint is that once I've activated XP, MS doesn't have a
right to know what I do with the hardware on my computer. Their
attitude about it is incredible. About a month ago, I put in new
memory chips, and had to re-activate XP. When I called MS, their
agent said, ``So what are we doing today?'' Almost as if I need
their permission to do something to my computer. It is extremely
intrusive, and goes far beyond what's necessary to protect against
software piracy.
I'm not the only one complaining about this. There are thousands
across the country who voice concern and dissent over MS's procedure
here, but must rely on the DOJ to advocate for their fundamental
rights.
Obviously, the DOJ has misjudged MS. The current settlement that
was reached with them has done nothing to cause the company to act
with restraint. The proof of the inadequacy of the settlement is
that with Windows XP they show a blanant disregard the right to
privacy, believing that they are entitled to know what you do with
your personal computer. Clearly, MS is showing us where it is they
intend to take us: complete control over your personal computer.
They have just purchased QWest's internet system, and will be able
to leverage internet access as well. I guarantee that their next
step will be to force people to buy MSN in order to use Windows, all
the while claiming that MSN is part of the operating system.
It's a sad commentary federal and state governments are allowing
MS to get away with such behavior. Big Brother has arrived, but it's
not the government, it's Microsoft.
I appreciate your time.
Thank you,
Derek Mason
Smithfield, UT
MTC-00009810
From: Harvey I. Salwen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:1lpm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Harvey and Jean Salwen PO Box 363 817 Brushtown Road Gwynedd
Valley, PA 19437
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have been a computer user since 1980 and clearly remember
having 7 operating systems for my computer. There was one for each
application. Microsoft eliminated the agony and chaos. Please honor
the in-place agreement that will allow you, Microsoft, and the rest
of the country get back to work. There are more important things to
do. cc: Senator Rick Santorum
Sincerely,
Harvey Salwen
MTC-00009811
From: charlie e guest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I believe the time has come to settle the Microsoft case. I have
no earthly way of knowing all the facts in this. I do know that some
of the states have agreed to settle and I think the Department
should do just that. See to it that they all agree and you gentlemen
and ladies get back to your business. This has gone on long enough.
It has taken a toll on the taxpayer. I am not even sure they did
anything wrong, but you are in a better position to determine that.
Thank you for your time. Have a good new year.
Charles Guest
[email protected]
MTC-00009812
From: Joseph Heck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice.
While I applaud the Department of Justice's efforts to settle
the suit with Microsoft in a fashion that won't require eternal
oversight by the courts, I am deeply concerned with some of the
articles in the proposed final settlement.
In particular I believe there should be swifter and harsh
penalties for Microsoft if there is any complaint from a member of
the Technical Committee.
Microsoft has clearly shown in the past that it has little
regard for the court's directives, which has directly led to this
case, and that it's familiar with all legal standings to stall the
courts of the United States in such
[[Page 25210]]
a manner as to accomplish it's desired effects, even at some later
pain to itself. Because of it's monopoly status, it can withstand
significantly more derailing than many middle-ware application
companies, and it could easily drive competitors in this space out
of business before the courts could muster themselves to act.
It would be exceptionally worthwhile to define in the proposed
remedies wether or not Internet Explorer was a part of the Operating
system, simply for the purpose to defining if it is considered
``microsoft middleware'', and hence removable, or to have API's with
which developers can communicate and interoperate.
In addition, I believe there should be some explicit mention of
other middleware programs currently being subtly integrated into
Microsoft's product offering: Microsoft Messenger, Windows Media
Player--and which match past microsoft actions to integrate what I
consider middleware technologies into the operating system. Again,
the purpose would be to define wether or not these should be able to
be explicitly removed or API's provided to developers for
interaction.
Finally, there was some significant press regarding a punative
action against microsoft involving the court-ordered disbursement of
software & hardware to support education in the United States. I
believe firmly that if this action is deemed nessecary that the
courts will modify the specifications of the demand such that
Microsoft is required to fund the needs of educational institutions
without any control over what technologgies they may choose to
utilitze and/or deploy. I viewed the initial reports of this
disbursement with significant trepidation, as it honestly appeared
to be an action which would effectively be a government sanctioned
extension of the Microsoft desktop monopoly.
Thank you for reviewing my comments and taking them into
consideration.
Sincerely,
Joseph Heck
302 Garfield St.
Seattle, WA 98109
[email protected]
MTC-00009813
From: Griffis, Tom
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft `settlement'
Dear Sir or Madam,
Since the Supreme Court has affirmed the lower courts decision
that found that Microsoft was guilty of violating our anti-trust
laws, I feel that Microsoft should be punished in accordance with
the laws and precedents concerning same.
The proposed `settlement' currently before the court is a sham,
that does little more than slap the wrist of Microsoft. Bill Gates
and company are dancing in the halls with glee and visions of owning
the world, as it relates to desktop computers and software.
Since the illegal practices utilized by Microsoft caused
grievous damage to the Netscape corporation and others, any remedy
should 'unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,' Ford Motor
Co., 405 U.S. at 577, and 'terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to
the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that
there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the
future,' United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250
(1968).
The only way that this can be accomplished is to split Microsoft
into multiple companies! One company that deals only in operating
systems that, by definition, are vehicles upon which application
software packages ride and do not provide direct application
functionality. The rest of Microsoft could then be divided into
software utilities, productivity suites, games, etc., company(s).
As a 30 year computer software engineer on IBM mainframes,
military computers, and desktop computers, I do have knowledge in
this area, which greatly exceeds the knowledge of the general
populace. I already have a hard time finding desirable software that
I can run on my personal and work computers that is not made by
Microsoft. All of the really good stuff is already gone, swallowed
by the behemoth of software, Microsoft. The few remaining companies
tremble in fear that mighty MS may soon decide to cut them off from
the information necessary to compete, if not actually force them out
of business! And, all of this is killing my wallet! As long as
Microsoft can continue to raise the price of their operating systems
by integrating more and more application software, our economy will
continue to suffer! The price of Personal Computers has dropped to
one-third of their original price, while the price of Windows has
increased in the same time period. And, as MS drives competition out
of the market, the price on MS application software continues to
rise.
The time to punish Microsoft is now, before it is too late!
Sincerely,
Thomas Griffis
SunGard AMS
104 Inverness Center Place
Suite 325
Birmingham, AL 35242
(205) 437-7622
Home office:
11535 McMeans Blvd.
Tanner, AL 35671
(256) 216-5683
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
MTC-00009814
From: Abigail Ochs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
After reading about the Microsoft antitrust case, I feel as
though the Justice Department has ignored the majority of the court
findings that Microsoft has aggressively abused its monopoly
position for its own competitive advantage. Additionally, I feel
that the final proposition to not penalize MS for its long-standing
antitrust abuses is actually granting it a de-facto monopoly in the
industry going forward. This failure on the part of the Justice
Department could enable Microsoft's predatory patterns to eclipse
emerging software companies or even dissuade the creation of new
companies. For this reason, I would strongly urge that you
reconsider the proposed final judgment.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Abigail Ochs
MTC-00009815
From: Lindeman, Andrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft needs a bigger penelty
To whom it concerns,
I believe that the previous agreement that was made by Microsoft
and a few of the states involved is a mere (or less than) a slap on
the wrist. Microsoft has no viable competition (at the time) and
because of this, they have already been determined to be an illegal
monopoly.
Competition is a good thing. Competition provides good prices
and quality products. Are Microsoft products low priced and good
quality? NO! They are way overpriced--XP full version HOME EDITION
is $200; 2000 Adv. Server can get in to the thousands and ten-
thousands by the time all of the licenses are paid for. They are
also not quality products either; There is a major Microsoft bug at
least every 3-4 weeks, and many smaller to medium priority bugs
almost every day! Microsoft would like to keep it this way, and they
can't be allowed to be.
Microsoft needs something more than a slap on the wrist, they
need to be punished for what they did, and they deserve more than
what the current agreement allows.
Thank you,
Andrew Lindeman
118 Brookdel Drive
Madison, AL 35758
MTC-00009816
From: Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree strongly with Richard Blumenthal regarding the remedies
which should be imposed in any Microsoft settlement. These should
include remedies (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar
conduct in the future, (2) to spark competition in this industry;
and (3) to deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
Please also consider the items listed in my previous
correspondence as means to this end. As a computer professional, I
am willing to help in this matter in any way I can.
Thank you.
Regards,
Michael Kitchen, CEO Front Row Computer
MTC-00009817
From: Salim Furth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
To be quite brief, I urge you to reject the U.S. Justice
Department's agreement with the Microsoft Corporation. As a
computer-dependent student and webmaster, I experience firsthand the
MS software and OS
[[Page 25211]]
monopoly firsthand, and find it distinctly unAmerican. The inability
of other operating systems and software providers to be competitive
in the American market effectively outsources innovation overseas,
which will catch up with the U.S. software industry in a few years
if Microsoft is not stopped.
Thank you for entertaining input from citizens, as one such
citizen I greatly appreciate this service.
Sincerely,
Salim Furth
Milton, Massachusetts
[email protected]
MTC-00009818
From: Jeff Monks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
As an information technology professional, I consider myself
someone who is heavily impacted by Microsoft's influence in the
industry. I also believe I am well-informed of the issues involved,
and have a clear understanding of the case. That is why I am
extremely dismayed at the settlement proposed by the Department of
Justice. While it provides a possible starting place for a fair
settlement, it is almost worthless as regards protecting the
industry from Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices.
Judge Jackson's findings that Microsoft's past actions
constituted illegal maintenance of a monopoly are nearly
unaddressed: where is Microsoft being punished under the proposed
settlement? The settlement merely outlines a few guidelines for
future business practices, without levying any sort of punitive
action for past actions. It is important to remember that we are
talking about a corporation that has been found guilty of breaking
United States law, and under the proposed settlement will not even
be subject to a fine.
I would propose at least two additional requirements for the
settlement:
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all
interfaces between software components, all communications
protocols, and all file formats. One of the most powerful tools for
Microsoft to maintain its monopoly influence and control competitors
is the use of its market share to force users to use Microsoft
software in order to interoperate with other users. Open file
formats and communications protocols would enable competitors to
enter the market with substantially reduced barriers to acceptance,
allowing them to compete with Microsoft on a ``level playing
field''.
2. Require Microsoft to use its software patents for defense
only (patents in other fields are not necessarily relevant here, and
can be exempted). It does little good to force publication of
specification to an interface, if elements of that interface are
patented and Microsoft refuses to license the patent to competitors.
Requiring Microsoft to offer open licensing for any patents that
would interfere with the requirement for open specifications is a
must.
Further, I must stress that I feel it is a grave disservice to
the people who have been hurt by Microsoft's practices to allow
Microsoft to enter into any settlement without paying some sort of
appropriate penalty for its past actions. To do any less would
deprive the American public of any real justice in this case.
Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Monks
7103 Rock Springs Cove
Austin, TX 78729
MTC-00009819
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:35pm
Subject: A comment
I am sorry, but I do not see how a slap on the wrist is going to
improve things in the future. If the anti-trust case is anything
more than a joke then the penalty MUST be commensurate with the
massive amount of damage that they have illegally (Microsoft was
found guilty of anti competitive business practices) wrecked upon
other computer technology companies probably since the beginning. An
inconsequential penalty will not give pause to the continuation of
these unethical and, in my humble opinion un-American business
practices. If Microsoft is allowed to continue unchecked the result
will likely be the decline of the American tech sector as a whole
with possibly unpleasant repercussions to our entire economy. Thank
you.
MTC-00009820
From: Arthur McIntyre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that Microsoft should not be punished for the Windows
product. The Apple computer only has 1 OS allowed on it and that is
a monopoly for Apple Computers in that respect. If I wanted Linux,
BeOs or Unix I would have it. None of these OS's offer what I need
or want. I do not run a network system at home only a desk top
system. I am not looking to be a hacker or such that I need these
systems. If I wanted them I would use them. These are the company's
that are pressuring everyone to do something about Microsoft. If
they want to be on my desk top maybe they should offer something I
want. But they do not. If I wanted to use Netscape as my browser I
could. At one time I used Netscape as my only browser then I started
to use both of them depending on what web site I was going to use. I
stopped using Netscape because they did not keep up with IE in
innovation and offering what I wanted. If they came up with a new
browser I would use it. It is all about what have you done for me
lately and they have done nothing. I think AOL is trying to become a
monopoly in its own way. They bought Netscape but still offer IE and
the browser that is AOL's is terrible. If you have AOL you have to
use all of what they want. I do not see any other internet provider
doing that. I have used at least 6 different Internet providers for
the time I have been on the net but the only one I have not tried
and used is AOL and I would not ever. It is like be a mindless
slave.
They only thing that should be required of Microsoft is that
they allow computer manufacturers to set-up Windows how they want
but if they do then that manufacture has to have help support or pay
for the support from Microsoft for their systems if they change the
set-up. They should also be allowed to add other company's stuff to
Window's. But the consumer has to be thought about here.
If I buy someone's computer instead of building my own I should
not have to be forced to have what that company says should be on it
just because they have signed a marketing contract with them. If
they are going to offer only AOL for me to sign on to the internet
with then that is wrong is does not allow me freedom of choice. I
think all computers should have the same windows on them then a
extra disc is used and the consumer gets to pick what they want
after that. All providers could put their stuff on this disc and
then the consumer can choose what they want to install and it should
work without a problem. Why should Microsoft be punished for
something that everyone wants. For the people who bash Microsoft it
goes to the same thing as TV and Radio, If you don't like the
channel change it. Nobody is making you listen to them. It is all
about freedom and this is now being walked on since other company's
do not have something I want.
Thank You,
Arthur & Viva McIntyre
MTC-00009821
From: Jim Brents
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop the harassment of Bill gates and let him get on with doing
what he does better than all his competitors; supplying the American
consumer with the best products money can buy.
Jim Brents
Bay City, TX
MTC-00009822
From: Robert Talbott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
This case has drug on too long. They have paid the publicity
price and Clinton doesn't need it any more.
Let's finish and be done with it.
Bob Talbott
MTC-00009823
From: Jeremy Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 6:01pm
Subject: US vs Microsoft Jeremy Brown January 9, 2002 The Honorable
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy 315 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Sen. Kennedy:
I am writing you in regards to the proposed settlement in the
case of US vs. Microsoft. I am a professional in the IT field and
have to deal with Microsoft products on a regular basis. In my
opinion, this settlement is not good for the people of the United
States or
[[Page 25212]]
its competitors. Microsoft has bullied its way to the top, and
continues to use its considerable clout to keep its position.
In my every day dealings with Microsoft products, I have seen
examples of limited choice, poor functionality and inferior
workmanship. Some examples:
* In Windows Millennium Edition and Windows XP, many programs
cannot be uninstalled or disabled, wasting space and resources.
Examples include Microsoft Passport registration, Windows Media
Player, Windows Movie Maker and Windows System Restore. Even if I
wished to install another piece of software that would perform the
same task more efficiently or with more features, these programs
remain.
* The newest version of the Microsoft Corporate License Program
requires any corporate subscriber to upgrade their software on
Microsoft's timetable instead of their own. Microsoft states that
the cost of software will be lower, but fails to mention that the
Total cost of ownership will be higher. The demands that newer
Microsoft's software puts on equipment rises in each iteration of
the software. Corporations will have to invest in more powerful
computers, staff training, and IT management. Reference: www.idg.net
http://www.idg.net/ic--784747--1794--9-10000.html>
* Microsoft has taken deliberate steps in order to force
companies to upgrade to its newer software products. They have
announced that it will discontinue support of all previous versions
of Windows before Windows 2000 and XP as of the end of 2002. Windows
98 and NT 4.0 are still viable solutions in many companies, and will
continue to be for several years to come and without regular updates
to these programs from MS, many companies will have to spend more
time and effort in maintaining corporate systems. MS has also pulled
functionality updates, specifically Windows NT 4.0 service pack 7,
which would have allowed companies to maintain their existing
servers with newer Windows 2000 based servers and its newer network
directory format. When MS introduced Office 97, they changed the
format that files were saved making them unreadable for earlier
versions of Office. All of these issues relate back to my second
point.
* Time after time, MS has released products that are full of
security holes that can endanger the safety of corporate networks,
information and business. The latest Internet Explorer 6 security
hole alarmed the FBI to the point that the agency issued a press
release aimed at the general public and corporations that pointed
out the severe danger level the error posed to computers and
networks. In a study recently released by the National Academy of
Sciences has called for legislation regulating this issue.
Reference: www.theinquirer.net http://www.theinquirer.net/
22120101.htm>
* Microsoft has been proven to take international recognized
standards and alter them so that they will work more efficiently
with its own products and poorly or not at all with other companies?
products. The most famous and egregious is the now-famous Sun Java
fiasco, but others have included changes to the Kerberos security
protocol and Quality of Service (QoS) protocols.
* In a recently leaked memo MS is said that it will intend to
launch a full-fledged Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) against Linux,
its most capable opponent in the server field. Reference:
www.theinquirer.net http://www.theinquirer.net/>
* Microsoft grossly inflates the price for various versions of
its operating systems based on how many processors it can use in a
computer, while Linux and most other server operating systems do
not. This has lead to issues with Intel's newest Pentium chip, which
uses a technology called Hyper-Threading and will appear as multiple
CPUs to the operating system. To properly use this function at home,
minimally you would have to purchase Windows XP or 2000
Professional, at a 33% increase in price over Windows XP Home. The
cost for server versions of Windows 2000 would more than double
between each version. EG, Windows 2000 Server with 5 licenses costs
approximately $850+ $50 for each additional license and supports up
to four processors, but to properly use a four processor equipped
server with the Intel Pentium 4 Xeon processor that supports Hyper-
Threading, you would have to purchase Windows 2000 Advanced Server
with 25 licenses (minimum amount of licenses available for this
product) that would cost approximately $3400. Reference:
www.theinquirer.net http://www.theinquirer.net/30120102.htm> ,
www.pcmall.com http://www.pcmall.com/> .
* As seen in the previous point, Microsoft charges you to access
their server products that are installed on a server. If you have a
small company that only needs 5 Client Access Licenses, you are set.
But if you were to hire a temporary employee, you are required to
purchase a new license for the temp. Failing to do so could bring
about litigation that could cost thousands. No other server
operating system does this.
I have listed just eight points that just begin to scratch the
surface of the abuse Microsoft commits, and there are hundreds if
not thousands of issues that I do not deal with on a regular basis
thus cannot address. I hope that you and other members of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary will address these points in regards to
the poor settlement worked out by the Department of Justice with
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Brown
Network Systems Engineer
4 Montgomery Dr,
Framingham, Ma, 01701-3962
Phone: 508-877-2307
Fax: 508-877-0131
MTC-00009825
From: Barclay Thomas M
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 6:11pm
Subject: Real penalties and permanent oversight for Microsoft,
please
222 Park Avenue
Long Beach,
CA 90803
9 January 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Esq. Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse;
I am a citizen of the United States. I work in the information
technology industry. I believe that it would be disastrous for me
should all the tools of my livelihood be owned by a single corporate
entity, no matter how well intentioned. This is what Microsoft
intends. The evidence revealed in court which led to their antitrust
conviction indicates that Microsoft is not well intentioned. I am
profoundly concerned that, in the matter of US vs. Microsoft, the
penalty phase of the trial is being managed by the convicted
defendant in such ways as to increase their monopoly over today's
information technology and, even more importantly, that of tomorrow.
The far-reaching consequences of this de facto reversal of the anti-
trust trial verdict would be difficult to overestimate. It is no
exaggeration to say that this is a matter that will impact every
life on this planet for many lifetimes to come.
Because of the importance of this issue (in my view), I will
also fax this letter to you at 202/616-9937.
It is critically important that real, far-reaching and
controlling penalties be assessed against Microsoft. Their very
settlement proposal shows that the corporation's unbridled ambitions
include actual control of every possible future application of
information technology. The tendrils of this plan reach deeply into
matters of the defense of this country and its economic health, in
ways so insidious that they can be nothing but another Microsoft
plan for market dominance.
This time, Microsoft is clearly thinking of the big picture.
They are thinking of the entire nation and its governance. They are
thinking of the entire global economy. They want it all. Their
proposed settlement is another covert, gift-wrapped mechanism to
achieve ambitious and self-serving ends.
Microsoft is not sorry that it has performed monopolistically.
They are ceaselessly, incurably, rapaciously ambitious. They have
been found guilty; the punishment you help to assign must somehow
enforce a curb upon their avarice and ability to infiltrate the
fabric of our entire lives. Serious penalties are called for.
Constant oversight is called for. The proposed settlement includes
neither of these elements.
I could synthesize my own arguments for your consideration, but
others, better informed and more knowledgeable, have already done
so. I will quote them extensively, and hope you will consider the
wisdom of their words.
From Dennis E. Powell of LinuxPlanet:
``The ... proposed settlement ... would grant Microsoft its
operating system monopoly--indeed, contains wording such that it
would no longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain that monopoly--
while saying that if Microsoft wants to, it can make it easier for
people to write Windows applications, but it's by no means required
to do so. In short, the settlement is a travesty, an ill-advised
[[Page 25213]]
embarrassment that flings down and dances upon the law and upon all
but the most twisted notion of justice.
``I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed even pretends
to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been
found culpable* The company has, I remind the judge, already been
found in violation, and this is the penalty phase of the case, but
the settlement contains no penalties and actually advances
Microsoft's operating system monopoly. A just penalty ... would at
barest minimum include three additional features:
* Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
* The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems* This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications for Windows
operating systems), which is already part of the proposed
settlement.
* Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
``I ... point out that if the national interest is at issue ...
and as the judge has suggested... it is crucial that Microsoft's
operating system monopoly not be extended ... I quote the study
released a year ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and
International Studies, which pointed out that the use of Microsoft
software actually poses a national security risk. In closing, I say
that all are surely in agreement that the resolution of this case is
of great importance, not just now but for many years to come. This
suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more important to
the health of the nation than is a hasty one.''
``A settlement more along the lines of the one I propose above
would greatly benefit Windows users as well, because competition
would force Microsoft to improve the quality of its products in
areas including but not limited to reliability and security. The
settlement before the judge would benefit only Microsoft; a sterner
settlement would benefit everybody. I ask the judge to consider that
the proposed settlement hurts each and every one of us in this
nation in real, tangible ways. The proposed settlement should be
rejected as ineffectual and again a tool of monopoly for Microsoft.
Here are the words of a California system administrator, with
which I whole-heartedly agree: ``As the Network Administrator ... it
is my responsibility oversee the deployment of new technologies to
our company. My position gives me ample freedom to implement
whatever software or hardware I see necessary to keep the company
network running smoothly and to satisfy user requests.
Unfortunately, though my position may give me that freedom, the
current software economy cannot....
``I would dearly love to replace all Microsoft technology in my
office with Open Source software, and if the software economy give
me as much freedom as my job did, I would do just that. However, the
most defeating problem is what Microsoft chooses to keep secret--
it's network protocols, the layout of its Office files, and the
precise technology needed to migrate from their email server.... I
am asking the court to force Microsoft to publish these protocols in
detail. ``I am also urging to court to act on future technologies as
well. Microsoft is now planning to add vast pieces of the Internet
to its web of interdependencies. With its initiative .Net, whole
portions of the web would be cut off from non-Microsoft
technologies. We have seen a glimpse of the monopolist's vision of
the future with the UK and MSN portal, designed by Microsoft and
accessible only with Microsoft technology. . . .''
From a Canadian university (a nation whose economic fortunes are
inextricably tied to those of the United States) comes a very
specific analysis with which there can be no cogent argument,
because it raises the issue of the user's right to his or her own
data: ``Because the most successful competitors in recent years in
product markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto monopoly
(e.g. personal computer operating systems, Internet browsers, and
office productivity software) have arisen from the open source
software community, I believe it is of extreme importance that any
settlement protect and enhance this community's ability to produce
products that provide end-users with viable choices.
``In my reading of the proposed settlement, such protection is
not provided. On the contrary, the settlement will serve to allow
Microsoft to continue to hinder the open source software community's
efforts.
``The proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of APIs and
licensing of intellectual property. I fear that any information
disclosed by Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or
developers under conditions of a non-disclosure agreement, thus
preventing the implementation of such protocols in an open source
project or product.
``This settlement, if implemented as proposed, will serve to
entrench Microsoft's monopolies further, by allowing it to exclude
the open source software community from any future technologies and
APIs it develops. As this community is currently one of Microsoft's
most serious competitors, it seems unbelievable that the proposed
settlement will aid Microsoft in eliminating this `threat' to their
monopolies.
``As an example of the current problem' of Microsoft's monopoly
in the OS and office productivity software markets, I point to the
ubiquitous `.doc' file. This one proprietary file format I believe
is one of the cornerstones of Microsoft's OS/productivity suite
monopoly. Many people I know in the academic and business
communities regularly purchase updated versions of Microsoft Windows
and Microsoft Office for the sole reason that their correspondents
send them .doc files as e-mail attachments. The options for
importing these files into 3rd party applications are many; however,
having personally tried a large number of such programs, both free
and commercial,
I can safely say that many work well some of the time, none work
well all of the time. The continuing cycle of forced upgrades to
maintain compatibility with correspondents lies at the heart of
Microsoft's monopoly.
``As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that
Microsoft should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the
file formats used by its products to anyone who sends or receives
files in such formats and requests the information.
``Left unsolved, this problem is bound to be more severe in the
future. It has been widely reported recently that Microsoft is
considering moving to a yearly licensing-fee system for its OS and
Office software. In this case, files created with licensed software
and saved in proprietary formats may be permanently unavailable to
the creator or owner of the data in the file if a user or company
chooses to terminate its license. I may own the copyright of the
work I create, but that is of little value if the only copy of the
work in existence is one saved in a format to which I do not have
access.
``Of course the .doc file format is not the only proprietary
file format Microsoft products use, and the arguments above apply
equally well to other products and file formats. The .doc format is
likely the most important however, because text-based documents
appear to be the most commonly shared and transmitted.
``A second cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly is the fact that
many computer manufacturers will not sell computer hardware without
a Microsoft OS. I understand that the proposed settlement will
prevent Microsoft from entering into exclusive arrangements with
vendors, but I believe that stronger protections are required.
``If Microsoft's agreements with computer vendors forced the
vendor to disclose to the computer purchaser the price of the
Microsoft products included, it would help consumers choose products
and vendors that were appropriate to their needs. As an example, I
point to Dell which will, as far as I can tell, not sell a computer
without a Microsoft OS and office productivity suite. If purchasers
knew that without these products they could save some number of
dollars, that now often amounts to a sizable percentage of the
computer package purchase price, they could apply pressure to the
vendor to provide alternative (likely less expensive) products.
Microsoft has stated concerns that selling computers without
operating systems equates to software piracy. This assertion is
absurd, and has become irrelevant with Microsoft's newest release of
Windows XP, which requires license activation.
``Having consumers and end-users with more information is
clearly in the public
[[Page 25214]]
interest. All of what is suggested here concerns supplying
information that enables computer users to make informed decisions,
and to access their own work on their own computer.
``In summary, I believe the proposed settlement is seriously
lacking, and will, if implemented as proposed, aid Microsoft in its
efforts to hinder its most viable competitors. Any successful
settlement must protect the rights of computer users to choose the
products they desire to access their data.''
If much of the legal profession is about finding loopholes (it
is), then accountancy is about closing them. So it's not surprising
that a certified public accountant found a glaring and terrible
loophole in the proposed settlement and argued that it should be
eliminated:
``Another issue I have with the proposed settlement is the
restrictions that are placed on the entities with which Microsoft
must share their API's. In the explanations I have seen of the
proposed settlement these entities are restricted to `commercial'
ventures, implying for-profit status. This is simply wrong and way
too restrictive. I believe that to be truly effective the parties
with whom Microsoft should share their API's and the like should be
broadly defined, maybe something like `any party or entity that
could potentially benefit from such information' In other words this
information should essentially be in the public domain.''
Many of us are simply and plainly harmed by Microsoft's business
practices. From Microsoft's own back yard, Seattle, a commentator
considers the specifics of the proposed settlement. She provides a
compelling illustration of how she is personally damaged by the
Microsoft monopoly: ``Microsoft has been determined guilty of
violating anti-trust laws and the penalty phase just seems to miss
the mark. I am hearing comments on the street that the U.S.
Government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft. I will
admit that I find the `penalties' somewhat perplexing in that they
certainly seem to miss the mark rather completely.
``I personally think that is probably a little radical, but then
I see demo copies of Microsoft's XP operating system on all the
workbenches of my local post offices and I do wonder what is going
on here. I do not see any other vendors' product demos available
there. (Doesn't) this seem to indicate implicit approval of
Microsoft products and no other by a government entity?
``The following are the flaws that I see in the `penalties' that
essentially seem to leave Microsoft better off than they were before
the trial.
``. . . there is no separation of integrated software that harms
and stifles competition to the Microsoft operating system. Further I
see no provisions for computer manufacturers to be able to offer
other and more viable operating systems in a fair and price
competitive atmosphere-- essentially nothing has changed (under the
terms of the proposed settlement). ``I do not see that the
proprietary protocols for the operating system, networking and other
elements are to be made public in order that others may have equal
opportunity to develop applications in a spirit of healthy
competition and to encourage innovation. Microsoft appears to be
allowed to maintain the closed, proprietary and monopolistic systems
that started this process. Again it appears that nothing has changed
and it will be business as usual for Microsoft. ``In Washington
State, Microsoft continues with its obnoxious and heavy handed
practices, only now in a new area. Their handling of their Internet
Service Provider (ISP) business seems to be following the same basic
marketing strategy that they used with their operating systems. This
has even been noted in the Seattle Times newspaper, in a city where
normally Microsoft can do no wrong: http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134378212--qwest14m0.html
``Again, it appears to be business as usual for Microsoft.
``Thus I am perplexed at the current `penalties' being `imposed'
on Microsoft. They seem to be more of an encouragement for Microsoft
to continue in the same ways it has been and those are the very same
ones that brought this issue to the DOJ in the first place. If these
are implemented as currently stated, then fair business practices,
innovation and competition are DEAD in the computer field.
``I do use Microsoft products; a very few are reasonably decent
but I am forced to use others because the only option I have for
them is other Microsoft products. Because of this, my time is
considerably less efficiently used in repairing and working to keep
the systems going rather than accomplishing work that I need to do.
If one does not expect much from the computers running Microsoft
products then they are not the absolute worst products on the
planet. If you expect much from them and / or use them heavily then
you are going to rather constantly ... have them fail (with
resulting) loss of time, effort and money. On days when I am working
hard it is common to have to reboot my machine to recover my working
ability at least several times. As time goes on from the initial (or
subsequent complete re-install of the operating system) the
situation grows steadily worse. The overall cost of running
Microsoft products is incredibly high and far higher than it ever
should be were Microsoft concerned with more than creating a market
for the next version of its products. Bluntly, quality is not job
one.
``In order that Microsoft be brought into line and with any hope
of curbing their horrid business practices, it will take REAL
penalties and serious oversight. With the obscene amounts of money
that Microsoft has managed to accumulate through its less-than-fair
business practices ... there is some doubt as to whether that can
actually be accomplished. It has become quite obvious to anyone
working in the field that there is no honor or integrity in
Microsoft, only the search for more money in complete disregard for
the good of the industry, the users ... at this point in time it
becomes rather blatantly obvious that national security is at risk
due to the poor quality and serious lack of attention to security
that is (an) epidemic in their products. That alternatives are few
is a direct result of the issues that DOJ is supposed to be
addressing in this matter. ``I've been told that I am wasting my
time here, in that Microsoft can pay people to submit positive
comments for this business enhancing solution that has been proposed
as a `punishment'.
They have done the same things in the past; that is pretty much
common knowledge. I can only hope that DOJ will prove wise, not be
bought out by Microsoft and free the industry for the good of the
consumer and the country.''
A computer professional who has a long list of certifications--
including some from Microsoft-- makes the point that competition is
the only assurance of high quality:
``Microsoft products, by virtue of being (created by) a
monopoly, have been designed without concern for security or
reliability. I can prove that the design of Microsoft products leads
to the spread of countless virii in the computer industry. They
(Microsoft products) are the perfect products to use to send
damaging virus from many groups like the terrorists from
Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt .... And do not imagine that
these places have not already done damage. ``And it is not only
because Microsoft products are in such wide use, but the real
problem is that the products have been very poorly designed. It
seems Microsoft has enough money to do the job right, so the
remaining reasons why the products are so poorly written is that
there is currently no need to be `best of breed' when you are the
only option.
``It will not be long till they (the terrorists) discover that
they can inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. All this
because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly, and instead of actually
writing well-designed programs, they spend all the energy they have
to simply maintain that monopoly.
``Often I give speeches to information technology groups that
state, `Without Microsoft in the industry, we would be at least 10
years ahead of where we are today'. But because of the constrictive
designs and monopolizing practices of Microsoft, no possible
competitive products have been able to get a start.
``As just one example: IBM wrote a fine operating system called
0S/2 in 1992. Only today, some 9 years later, is Windows XP
beginning to catch up to the technical capability of 0S/2. In fact
it still has a long way to go to catch up to 0S/2 in security and
reliability. What happened? IBM could not get any hardware vendors
to carry the software because Microsoft had tied up all
manufacturers of computers to include with each and every computer,
a copy of Windows. This in spite of the fact that many wanted to use
OS/2 instead of Windows. What happened to anyone who decided to use
OS/2 was (that) they also paid (for) and received a copy of Windows
that they did not desire.
``The only way to get the marketplace back in order is to
separate the computer hardware from the operating system. When you
go to a store to buy a computer, you should be able to buy any
computer available without having to also purchase an operating
system. That choice should be made at the time of purchase rather
than (be forced through software) included in the cost of the
computer ....
[[Page 25215]]
``(This situation) is much akin to buying a car, and with that
car purchase also comes a coupon for gasoline from the Microsoft
Gasoline Company. We agree that the car uses gasoline, and we all
buy gasoline, but what if we prefer to buy gasoline from Shell
rather than prepay for gasoline from the Microsoft Gasoline Company?
Should we not have the option of not prepaying for fuel from the
Microsoft Gas Company? ...''
From Rick Hohensee of the cLIeNUX distribution comes a
substitute remedy proposal: ``(It would be best if) the Court
declares Microsoft operating system products `criminally compromised
intellectual property'. This is a special state of copyright
protection vacancy, under which Microsoft operating system products
lose their patent and copyright protections exactly five years after
their release dates .... ``First off, it has (the) one essential
characteristic of anything that will be effective upon Microsoft,
simplicity. They feed on loopholes. There are none in the above.
There's nothing they can do about the Fed not protecting the
copyrights their existence depends upon.
``There is nothing for them to cooperate with.
``This doesn't require any cooperation or good faith from
Microsoft, which is also crucial. (They may actually favor this
remedy, however.)
``It does actually partially break their monopoly. The AOLs and
Oracles and Rick Hohensees of the world can produce their own
alternatives to Windows, based on older versions of Windows. (I
personally have to be very well paid to look at a Windows desktop,
but distastes vary. I use Linux.)
The focus is on the software others are dependent on, (the)
operating systems. This leaves Microsoft untouched as to application
products such as Office....
``What goes in an OS, where they expend their energies, all
product design decisions and so on remain with Microsoft. Federal
micromanagement of Microsoft is avoided, to everyone's benefit ....
``
Another correspondent, from England, makes comments that must be
seen in the Federal Register. They neatly address further Microsoft
plans to manage national and world trade through monopolistic
practices identical to those for which Microsoft was convicted. ``MS
is desperate to stop Linux from competing in the client /server
market by enforcing an MS client/MS server strategy. An example of
this is the recent non-standard extensions to Kerberos so that if
companies have MS clients they will find the encryption protocols
may only work properly when they're talking to MS servers. This is
to be expected from the company that continuously muddied the waters
on SMB.
``.NET is really an extension of the same principle, though the
spinmeisters at Redmond make sickening paeans to Open Standards with
their `XML Foundations' nonsense. ``Let me give you an example of
Microsoft's commitment to XML as an open standard for data
exchange--taken from the December 2001 issue of Linux User in an
interview with OperaSoft's Haakon Lie:
``MS office claims to support XML but it writes the XML tags
inside HTML comments so that they can not be found (by non-MS
software). Even if the software then knew how to find the XML tags
it would not know how to interpret them as the format used for the
tags is proprietary! ``I think this tells you all you need to know
about Microsoft's conversion to XML.
``What about those of us who do not live in the US? Microsoft's
policies affect the entire world-- how do the rest of us try and
have a say in this? I speak as someone who lives in a country whose
government has decided to hive off the public sector IT
infrastructure lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft, and whose
leader, Tony Blair, goes weak-kneed in the presence of Bill Gates.
Britain is about to become the first reference site in the world for
.Net, if Gates gets approval from the government to roll out a
multi-billion dollar 100% MS solution for the tax authorities. In
the last month it has been announced that the National Health
Service and the Ministry of Defence have signed deals to put *all*
of their desktops under one MS licensing contract. In three years
time, if they want to carry on using the software, they will have to
pay whatever amount MS demands (the joys of software rental). The
lion's share of government contracts (in pound sterling terms) have
gone to EDS, a company which makes no secret of the fact that it is
little more than a value added reseller for Microsoft (all of EDS's
costly `solutions' are 100% MS).''
Please consider that the U.S. government has made much of
globalization. It is a good idea for the government to understand
that in cases such as this one, which have a global impact, this
means responsibility for corporate behavior within the boundaries of
the United States. Additionally, parties injured by the actions of
American companies, which actions took place in the U.S., have
standing by every standard I can find.
Finally, I will quote another wise man, a Floridian with more
intensive software industry experience than mine, who speaks to the
point of freedom of choice for the consumer: ``I am a Software
Developer who has worked in the industry for almost 10 years. I have
used many Microsoft products, and have enjoyed the increasing
abilities of software systems developed by Microsoft. I also enjoy
using other operating systems, but as a software developer, I have
to follow market trends to keep myself fed--regardless of the market
trends. ``However, it is apparent to any casual software user that
Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Web
Browser market. It is more apparent to a software developer who
works within Microsoft operating systems. The technical aspects
involved in the operating system itself (specifically, development
with the Microsoft Foundation Classes and use of `.Net' technology)
marries the software developer (happily or unhappily so) to Internet
Explorer, and the operating system.
``Furthermore, specific training programs such as MCSE
(Microsoft Certified Software Engineer) and MCSD (Microsoft
Certified Solution Developer) are geared towards maintaining the
Internet Browser market by way of gearing Microsoft Certified
individuals (who pay for courses and tests! to use only Microsoft
Products.
``Operating Systems. ``Software. ``Software Development. ``In an
Internet enabled world, these are the tools for maintaining a
monopoly on the Internet Browser Market.
``One could argue that nobody else has attempted these things on
the level that Microsoft Inc. has. Yet that is my point. Nobody
should. Freedom of Choice. ``The newer versions of Windows have the
Internet technologies wrapped in them. This IS an obvious attempt to
maintain a monopoly on the Internet Browser market. They may be able
to prove that they did not do it `on purpose', but they have done
it. If I run over a man with my car, and I broke a traffic law while
doing so, the offense is manslaughter. It I planned to do it
(premeditated), it's Murder 1. The fact remains that a man would be
dead.
``Odds are that when this is read, it will be read on a Windows
NT 4.0 machine. Why? Because the U.S. Government has certified
Windows NT 4.0 as a secure operating system. Furthermore, this mail
message will probably be read through another one of Microsoft's
applications. ``The U.S. Government, for lack of any other `secure'
operating system, has gone with the highest bidder. Neil Armstrong
quipped about going to the moon on everything built by the lowest
bidder, and here the United States states that we'll go with the
ONLY software manufacturer that creates an operating system. This
seems counterintuitive. Freedom of Choice. If you need more proof
than the software that the reader of this document is using, and my
ability to predict that, I'm at a loss.
``These two points highlight the fact that the average American
consumer is paying more than once for the same software--first as
consumers, then as taxpayers. When banks charge twice for ATM
withdrawals, we cringe and say that it may be legal, but it is
obviously immoral. Given, the hardware manufacturer is hiding the
price of the operating system on new computer systems, the fact
remains the same.
``This is a sticky situation, but legal recourse in the interest
of the people of the United States (and the rest of the world!)
should contain the following items:
``(1) Microsoft products--or products of any software
manufacturer--must be sold as separate items by computer vendors.
Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice. Other software manufacturers
then also have a chance to compete. Installation of the USER
SELECTED software can remain free.
``(2) Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in
full and approved by an independent network protocol body. This
would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the
Internet.
``(3) The specifications of Microsoft's past, present and future
document and network formats must be made public, so that documents
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other
makers, on Microsoft's AND other operating systems. This is in
addition to opening the Windows Application Program Interface
(`Windows API', the set of ``hooks'' that allow other parties to
write applications for Windows operating systems), which is already
part of the proposed settlement.
[[Page 25216]]
``(4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software
Engineering Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well
as insight into their development process for Operating Systems. SEI
level 3 is required by the United States Government for software
companies that supply software to it (or that was coming in 1999).
This certification was created to protect the government from
software manufacturers that had no software development process.
This same certification should protect the average consumer, AND
insight into the Software Development Process for creation of their
operating systems would give software manufacturers a chance to keep
up with Microsoft.
``(5) Device Driver information for new operating systems MUST
be made public prior to the release of the operating system by a
minimum of 6 months. This is VERY important when dealing with future
web enabled embedded devices. This is also very important to the
average consumer--they get a better product!
``This judgment is not only of import to the United States,
where it is a national issue. It is in fact an INTERNATIONAL issue,
since the monopoly itself extends to all corners of the world.
Judgment in this case MUST be fair to the consumer, because future
cases along these lines will look toward this precedent. And, in
future, it may not be as domestic an issue. ``Furthermore, if
Microsoft Inc. were a foreign company, this would be seen as a
security issue. It should be seen this way despite the fact that
Microsoft is a domestic software manufacturer, (and) for the SAME
reasons.
``Please realize that the implications in an Internet based
society reach further than the next few years. They affect society
ad infinitum.''
Please do not allow this travesty of a negotiated settlement to
warp this nation's future. Please do not allow the tools of
production to remain in a single pair of grasping corporate hands.
Thank you for your consideration. Please help the judge to make
careful and considered choices. The task before you now is to rein
in this corporate megalith and constrain its future behavior into
conformity with the letter and spirit of the law. The richest must
not be allowed to legislate for all of us, with no end other than
their further enrichment. That isn't justice.
Thomas M. Barclay
MTC-00009826
From: Steve Oualline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 6:15pm
Subject: Problems with the Microsoft Settlement
I am extremely concerned about the proposed settlement with
Microsoft.
Microsoft for a long time has been able to use their monopoly
power to keep other products off the market. This has allowed them
to overcharge for both their operating system and office suite.
The settlement does nothing to punish this past behavior.
Itstead it rewards Microsoft by letting it keep all the money it
stole from consumers through overchargin.
The other problem is that it does not prohibit future problems.
There is nothing to prevent Microsoft from using its monopoly in
operating systems from using that monoply to leverage itself into
the E-commerce market. Microsoft has long wanted to place a
``Microsoft Tax'' on every web based transaction and this settlement
will let them go ahead. If the settlement stands I can easily see a
day when Microsoft forces everyone who uses Windows to use Microsoft
Passport (or some other Microsoft technology) when buying on line.
Finally, the settlement forces Microsoft to expose it's API's so
that other people can write applications for the Microsoft Operating
system. However, Microsoft has added a clause that excludes Open
Source Projects. Since these are the principal compentation for
Microsoft's products I find that provision extremely troubling.
What Microsoft has done is said it will let anyone who wants to
get a copy of the API's except for anyone who might be really able
to use it. Is that a settlement or a gift to Microsoft?
In short this settlement gives almost everything to Microsoft
that Microsoft wanted. What we need is a settlement that contains
real penalitites and provides for solutions that foster real
compentation.
Steve Oualline
11259 Paul Barwick Ct.
San Diego, CA 92126
858-695-2637
MTC-00009827
From: Derek Su
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 6:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
As a taxpayer and citizen, I want to express my strongest
displeasure and disappointment of State government efforts in trying
to destroy the MOST SUCCESSFUL company in the world. Microsoft is
the envy of the high-tech industry, especially in the software area,
worldwide. The existence of Microsoft in the last 26 years is the
reason that USA is able to maintain its superior competitive age in
the high-tech industry of world market.
In any country, a company like Microsoft would be treated as
national symbol that every citizen can be proud of. According to the
public polls, majority of citizens like me, opposes the government
action which is abusing the public trust and wasting the taxpayer
money. I am very disturbed and puzzled by the actions taken by some
State Attorney Generals. The only conclusion I can make is either
those Attorney Generals are very naive and don't understand the
latest fast-moving new technology at all, or they are simply
pursuing a political solution for special interest groups. However,
they should be reminded that their actions may be AGAINST OUR
NATIONAL INTERESTS and only benefiting the special interest groups.
Please also pay a special attention to any potentially adverse
impact to our overall national economy if their ill-advised plans
are ever taken place. Thanks for your time.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Su
id5solutions
512.342.0500 x14
MTC-00009828
From: Matthew Dunn
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft needs to be punished for their crimes. Punish them in
a way that will help the IT industry. Make them share their API's.
As far as the making them give schools software...thanks now they
can take over a new market that they are not in.
Matt Dunn
Tech Manager
Microsoft product user
MTC-00009829
From: Jim Brents
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it was totally unfair to persecute Bill Gates for doing
a superb job of supplying the consumer with computer services. If
the settlement will end the persecution & let he and his company get
back to business, it should be accepted ASAP.
Sincerely,
Sandi Brents,
Bay City, TX
MTC-00009830
From: Randy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 6:35pm
Subject: hands off
The government should keep their hands off Microsoft! This
intrusion is a threat to ALL businesses in this country! How dare
they think they can just come in and take over! Are we still living
in the United States, or what?!
Jennifer Davidson
Petaluma, CA
MTC-00009831
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 6:49pm
Subject: (no subject)
I support the Microsoft settlement
MTC-00009833
From: Frapazoid 1.4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:23pm
Subject: My opinion of the Microsoft settlement
Microsoft's preposed settlement of buying their own software for
schools is absolutely insane, for many reasons.
1) If Microsoft buys their own software with the money, at full
price, how are they being punished? Let's say they ``spend'' 100k
dollars on WindowsXP. At 200$ per copy, they are really only paying
for the 3$ manufactur cost, and the rest just goes back to them. So
they are really only spening a 1.5% fraction of it. This applies to
just about all of their software.
2) Buying Microsoft's own software only strengthens their
monopoly by training millions of kids at schools in the use of
Microsoft software. So when they someday decide to buy their own
computers, they will get what they are used to; Microsoft software.
3) The simple fact that it's Microsoft who suggested this
settlement should be very suspicious. Obviously a company will try
to
[[Page 25217]]
come up with a punishment that doesn't really work but seems bad.
4) A well known tactic of Microsoft is to pay people to send
supportive EMails and mock flame-mails from fake Linux users. Anyone
who claims to use Linux and is sending really moronic messages to
this address is probably really a Microsoft supporter. Check their
Email headers and you will see they are using Windows.
Here is my preposed solution. Microsoft should spend 1$ dollars
on installing and support of competitor's software.
That means Linux, StarOffice, possibly Macintosh, etc. The rule
should be that whoever they buy software from must not be an ally;
They must be a competitor.
Also, Netscape is a must, in place of Internet Explorer. This
would work better for the following reasons:
1) The money doesn't just go back to Microsoft. They actually
have to do some spending, instead of just faking it.
2) It hurts the monopoly buy training people to use competitor's
software and hardware rather than their own.
3) WindowsXP has high system requirements, so a good portion of
the money will be spent on hardware. As a result, a smaller number
of machines will be able to be updated, because of the higher cost.
However, if something like Linux is used, hardware will not require
as much improvement. Less upgrade cost means more computers to be
upgraded.
4) Linux is far cheaper than Windows XP, which also means more
systems will be upgraded. Even with support, RedHat Linux would only
cost 60$ per copy, where WindowsXP would be significantly more.
Without the support, it would be about 5$ per school for OS
software.
5) This would be very supportive of Microsoft's competitors,
thus causing much damage to their monopoly. Also, if Microsoft
opposes this type of settlement, that means it will work as a
punishment. After all, if the criminal is okay with the punishment,
it's not a good one.
6) Most of Microsoft's competitors may be willing to give price
cuts to help their reputation, which would allow even more systems
to be updated with the billion dollars.
If you read this, please reply. You don't even need to say
anything, just hit reply and send without typing anything. I would
just like to be aware of wether these messages are being read or
not.
MTC-00009834
From: Barry Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Sir: i am glad that the DOJ and numerous states have
reached a settlement with Microsoft.
It is my sincerest hope that the remainder of the states be
brought ``into line'' with the settlement, so that the entire
computer industry, including Microsoft, can get back to what it does
best.
Thank you,
Barry Tucker
PowerPro Systems Group, Inc.
Microsoft Certified Solution Developer (programmer)
Microsoft Certified Solution Provider
CPA
www.ppsg.com [email protected]
520 742-9929
MTC-00009835
From: Ricevuto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:28pm
Subject: Web page not being updated...
To whom it may concern,
Will the web page (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms--index.htm)
be updated with any of the recent court activities (e.g. Microsoft
not being able to extend the deadline for the hearing)? It seems
that there has been no activity on it for a while.
Please let me know.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Pat Ricevuto
email: [email protected]
MTC-00009836
From: Elmer Laudinsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen: It is time to get on with business. The settlement
agreement, while still unfair to Microsoft, is most agreeable to all
those it affects. It is time for forget those special interests,
those that are complaining because they cannot compete at a fair
price with a good product. Microsoft has made available to the
public programs that are the best on the market at a price that
anyone can afford.
Let's get on with it and finalize this settlement.
--Elmer Laudinsky
[email protected]
MTC-00009837
From: Will Pearson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement Rebuttal
Hello,
I'm writing to help inform those who are deciding the fate of
the known world. The settlement with Microsoft as it currently
stands is little more than a pat-on-the-back for a proven Monopoly.
When Standard Oil was accused of being a monopoly Rockafeller
beleived that the government didn't have the authority to dismantle
his monopoly. When the government threatened to send in the
military, Rockafeller backed down, thus we have the several oil
companies we have today.
Today we have Microsoft, a company with a reprehensible past. A
company which has not innovated a single thing in it's history, and
yet Microsoft gets rewarded for it's carpetbagging.
I work in the Education business. I take care of Networks and
computers for a School District. For proof of Microsoft's monopoly
just walk down to your local school and look at the software that is
being taught. I'd bet my computer certifications that 90% of them
say ``Microsoft'' upon start up.
Here we are, teaching our children that it's good to play
unfair. That it's right to break the law because you'll be rewarded
for it. Just look at how the proposed settlement will effect other
companies. For instance, it gives Microsoft the authority as to who
can use their protocols. Now in the computer world, things work good
if protocols are standardized. Just look at the Internet running
TCP/IP, it works only because of that free and public
standardization.
Now look at Linux, the free operating system originally created
by Linus Torvalds, in the words of Microsoft Officer Brian
Valentine, ``It is the longterm threat.'' Lets look at that
sentence, notice he said `the' not `a' or even `possibly', he lept
straight to the big 'ol `THE'. Microsoft believes that there isn't a
single operating system in the world that possibly poses a threat to
it's monopoly, except Linux. And here we have under the proposed
settlement authority given to Microsoft to say who it can share it's
protocols with. How, because it gives Microsoft the ability to
discern what it beleives is a legitimate business. Since Linux is
free, it is non-profit. And therefore, not a legitimate business.
Nobody has made any money selling it.
Furthermore, the settlement will have a devestating effect on
the outcome of the various state lawsuits with Microsoft. Also the
lawsuits involving the European Union. Why, it sets a precedent.
You have a job to do, you have a job of punishing the bully in
the playground for not playing nice and breaking other kids legs. Do
your job and do the right thing.
William Pearson
Desk# 505-954-2583
Pager# 505-820-8488
Technology Resource Center
``The tree of liberty must be refreshed Santa Fe Public Schools
from time to time with the blood of Patriots & Tyrants''--Thomas
Jefferson ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' --
Benjamin Franklin ``I know not with what weapons World War III will
be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and
stones.''--Albert Einstein ``The purpose of war is to decide who has
justice on his side, the looser is the guilty one''--Lucan
MTC-00009838
From: Doug Spittler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:52pm
Subject: Justice???
To Whom It May Concern:
It seems difficult to believe that the U.S. Government is STILL
persecuting the company and the man who have brought about a
revolution at least as great as the Industrial Revolution.
This same government would be INOPERABLE if Bill Gates and
Microsoft didn't exist.
If another operating system of superior value were ``out
there,'' the market place would surely have discovered it by now.
Frankly, if I were Mr. Gates, I'd simply shut down Microsoft and let
you folks stew in your own juice.
Sincerely,
[[Page 25218]]
Doug Spittler
Kalama, WA
MTC-00009839
From: Dorothy St. Onge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is time to settle this anti trust case in favor of
Microsoft who should be free to innovate so that we can move into
the furture. I don't believe Microsoft has hurt anyone who purchased
software to use for business or pleasure. A computer today is
considered old at 3 years and this case has gone on far longer than
that and is costing the public a great deal of money. Money is what
it is all about as far as the states and Microsoft competitors are
concerned. They not only want Microsoft's money they want the tax
payers to pay the court costs for as long as possible. Wrap up this
case and let us get on with our lives and the right to innovate.
Dorothy St. Onge
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00009840
From: robert begley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:55pm
Subject: Drop to Case Against Microsoft
To Whom This Concerns,
I am writing to say that Bill Gates, not Bill Clinton, is
responsible for the boom in the economy we enjoyed during the 1990s.
If you follow the NASDAQ since the AntiTrust trial against Microsoft
heightened, you will see that it has spiralled downward
dramatically. The Anti Trust laws are non objective and should be
repealed immediately.
Sincerely,
Robert Begley
MTC-00009841
From: Deborah Levinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just wanted to write to tell you I hope you well do everything
to settle this case quickly and once and for all and do everything
in to get the last states to agree to the settlement that was agreed
by the government and Microsoft. It is time to move forward from
this case and move forward with our economy and letting Microsoft
build great products.
Thank you.
D Levinger
MTC-00009842
From: Keith Frederick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a supporter of BeOS, an operating system that has
recently--more or less--died with the sale of its parent company,
Be, Inc. to Palm. I have noticed that many BeOS users are lobbying
to extract gains from Microsoft or to increase punitive damages.
However, unlike other BeOS supporters I do NOT support the anti-
trust case against Microsoft and hope that the Department of Justice
does not seek to come up with new penalties or excessive penalties
against Microsoft as it would be counter-productive.
The truth about BeOS is that it failed due to poor management.
Originally, BeOS was provided for a PARTICULAR COMPUTER SYSTEM--just
like the Macintosh Operating system is provided for a particular
computer system. Originally, BeOS was NOT DESIGNED to work on multi-
boot systems. That is, BeOS was designed for computers that COULD
NOT run MS-Windows just like the Macintosh Operating system is on
computer systems that can not run MS-Windows.
The Be product was designed to compete for media developers who
were currently using the Macintosh--so, originally Be's competition
was the Macintosh. In fact, Be, Inc., at one time had hoped that
Apple would purchase Be -- instead Apple purchased NeXT and based
their future operating system on NeXT's technology rather than Be's
technology.
When Be failed to make headway with its own proprietary computer
system; and when Be failed to win against NeXT; Be, Inc. then
decided to compete in the general operating system market--against
Linux, FreeBSD and Microsoft--all systems that run on low-cost Intel
hardware. Be CHANGED their operating system to run on these new
Intel systems. There was very little software for BeOS compared to
Windows and Linux--that's why BeOS failed.
Unlike Linux which gained headway and had tens of thousands of
developers; the constant failures of Be turned-off developers and
little software was every produced for BeOS systems. Microsoft's
tactics had little to do with the failure of BeOS. BeOS was
competing in the same market as the Macintosh originally
(proprietary non-Intel systems) and failed; then BeOS went for the
low-cost Intel market and failed; and then Be, Inc. once again tried
a new strategy of forgetting about the desktop and concentrating on
devices with their BeIA--then they ran out of money and sold
themselves. Be had more ideas than money in the bank to support
their goals.
The history of Be is one of poor management. Be did not take the
time to slowly build market share. Be, Inc. could NOT even erode
Apple's market share when it competed against Apple. To think they
had a good chance in the even more competitive Intel market is a
laugh--Be was selling a proprietary closed operating system with
little software--and virtually ZERO marketing. That combination
against Linux (free with LOTS of publicity) and Windows (costly but
with LOTS of software) was doomed to initial failure-- however, if
Be had the money they might have carved out a niche --- they didn't
have the money and thus no time to build a niche. That's not
Microsoft's fault.
Please end the whole Microsoft affair quickly and please don't
allow people to put their failures at MS's doorstep. The story of Be
has to do with poor management. Be lasted 10 years trying to be the
next APPLE--only in the last few years did they compete in the
Microsoft realm--their failure has nothing to do with Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Keith Frederick,
Seattle, WA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009843
From: Alan Hensel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:26pm
Subject: think about the future
People tend to forget this Law of Nature: Nature does not favor
the mundane, nor does it favor the fantastic. Nature favors that
which is probable.
Keeping this in mind, consider these 4 facts:
1) E-commerce is already a big thing, and will be even bigger in
the future.
2) Microsoft has a history of pulling the rug out from under
competitors' feet.
3) Microsoft wants to be the sole platform of future e-commerce.
4) Microsoft wants to be able to helpfully auto-update their
software instantly over your broadband connection.
Alan Hensel
108-G Shadowood Dr.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[email protected]
MTC-00009844
From: Jim Poulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:38pm
Subject: Retired USAF SWBell union memeber & MS Stockholder
Is our government stupid?
Quit screwing with the brightest light in our economy.
If any other nation in the world had Microsoft in their country
they would back them to the limit. Only because our country allows
foreign lobbyists and because we have so many other multi-national
companies bribing our officials do we have this problem. Support the
USA and our workers and KNOCK IT OFF!
James Poulton
USAF (retired) MSgt
214-902-8996
MTC-00009845
From: Richard Wray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft
We love Microsoft hardware, but if their competitors come up
with something better, we'll try it. We don't think the Government
should force the market. Microsoft hasn't used force; they have used
contracts that both sides have agreed to.
Leave Microsoft and the high-tech market alone. You'll only
destroy the market by interjecting government force.
Dick and Vivi Wray
Palo Alto, CA
MTC-00009846
From: Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:00pm
Subject: Proposed settlement ICO U.S. v. Microsoft
Dear Sir or Ma'am,
The proposed settlement, in my view, does not punish Microsoft.
Indeed it strengthens them. Please allow me to illustrate this:
[[Page 25219]]
(a) The proposed settlement provides Microsoft with the sole
legal license to determine who shall be considered a business. This
does not at all bode well for organizations who write programs under
the Gnu public license. As no actual financial instrument changes
hands, Microsoft could state that a business/organization which
operates under the Gnu public license is, according to Microsoft,
not a business at all. As such, Microsoft is not required to provide
technical details of their middle ware, etc.
(b) As the settlement is to, at least purportedly, punish
Microsoft for their--proven--monopolistic practices, nowhere in the
proposed settlement is the requirement to, if you will, force the
consumer during installation of the operating system to make certain
choices. Choices pertaining to which web browser to have installed.
Which e- mail program to have installed and on and on. And, even if
there were, there is no requirement that there be no default
settings. That would be counter to the intent and purpose of the
settlement.
(c) Since there is very little competition against Microsoft,
how can there be as Microsoft has a proven monopoly, the products
which Microsoft ships are by any reasonable standard quite poor.
Security holes and patches that don't work are just two examples of
many. This traditional shipping of poor products has cost consumers
and businesses alike--billions--of dollars annually. Without
competition there is no reason to improve a company's product line.
Yet I can not find within the proposed settlement any protection for
consumers or businesses which are using Microsoft products. There is
no change to the current ``End User License Agreement'' which would
provide businesses and consumers alike with a legal remedy
(standing) should their system(s) be attacked by a virus, worm,
cracker, etc. Furthermore, there is no legal remedy (standing)
should a Microsoft product--cause--a business or consumer injury to
their computer or files.
An example of this is upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE
and Windows 98SE fails to shut down properly due to Microsoft's
willful--failure--to maintain device driver databases from previous
editions of Windows. Consequently, a business or consumer either has
to upgrade hardware or have their computer(s) crash on a daily
basis. In short, there needs to be remedy for the consumer and
business users of Microsoft products.
(d) Consumers should have the--choice--of operating systems when
purchasing a new computer. Consumers should not be stuck with
``comes with Windows [pick a flavor].'' Hence, Microsoft should be
forced to pull their operating systems from manufacturers. This
would give consumers a choice in the matter.
Thank you for your time.
/s/Mr. Kelly Prince
MTC-00009847
From: Eric MacKnight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am appalled at the Justice Department's proposed settlement
with Microsoft, which is nothing more than a disguised capitulation.
Microsoft's business practices are unrepentingly rapacious. Bill
Gates will do anything to win, and his ambition to control is
insatiable. Just today I found another small ``incident''
illustrating Microsoft's lack of ethics, in this story of how
Microsoft employees attempted to rig the results of a website poll
in Microsoft's favour: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-
s2102244,00.html Clearly, half-measures will have no effect
whatsoever in restraining Microsoft's illegal and unethical business
practices. I urge you to take the strongest possible measures
against this company. My own preference would be to require that the
corporation be split in two, with the operating system business in
one company, and the application software in another. This solution
would remove the incentive to monopolize, remove most of the
company's means to bully competitors, and promote innovation by
allowing smaller companies a chance to compete in the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Eric MacKnight
[email protected]
CANADA
Don't do Windows, and don't let Windows do you.
Boycott Microsoft!
http://www.procompetition.org/
http://www.breakupmicrosoft.org/
MTC-00009848
From: M. Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello--
I'd just like to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft
Settlement.
About the 1 Billion in refurbished equipment and software. I
really don't think that this is a punitive move. My reasons are as
follows.
1) While Microsoft is the default standard in nearly every
market it is less a leader in the educational market. This now
dictates that Microsoft has a federally mandated responsibility to
pursue market dominance in education and in fact cannot be refused.
2) Apple Computer, while a healthy company, is not the giant
that Microsoft is and to have the Federal government instruct
Microsoft to aggressively pursue market dominance will place undue
and unnecessary strain on Apple Computer's abilities to effectively
market products to this segment of Apple Computer's business.
3) While the donation idea seems to be a decent and thoughtful
move on the surface it in no way accomplishes the goals of the court
case as I understand them, ``...the remedial goals set by the U.S.
Court of Appeals:
(1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in the
future,
(2) to spark competition in this industry; and
(3) to deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.''
I have owned stock in both companies. I have sold my stake in
Microsoft this year. I have read the issues with Microsoft's
corporate behavior and have decided not to be associated with a
company that appears to have no ethical or moral underpinnings
regarding their corporate methods. The latest developments with
Microsoft's browser only underscore the fact that even though the
company has judgments against it, it has failed to amend it's
business practices to conform to generally accepted methods.
Please pursue a better solution to the Microsoft Anti-Trust
case, one that enforces the U.S. Court of Appeals goals.
Thank you for your time,
Mark Andrews
109 Chestnut St.
Branford, CT 06405
MTC-00009849
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I, along with the vast majority of the masses, are getting sick
and tired of the Dept of (Justice?) continuing to spend taxpayers
money to punish Microsoft because some of it's competitors want a
``level playing field'' so that they can gain on Microsoft without
any development on their own. Why should a company (MS) give out all
its source code (that took years to develope) to the world? This
whole thing started with some silly browser (hah!) AOL now has both
IE and netscape, so now where is the argument? The government has no
business in this suit that it will never comprehend the damage they
are doing to the country and to the many consumers. If you want to
attack someone, go get AOL...who continues to push and push a BAD
product after they have locked in millions of customers. They are
MUCH more monopolistic than MS. If the government would leave this
area up to the industry, they would resolve it by themselves. The
DOH HAS NO IDEA of the many agreements and the damage this is doing
to the millions of consumers and customers....it is not just
punishing Microsoft.
These last states attorney generals are just blowing smoke for
some special competitors....this is not about abuse of the public
and MS customers.
MTC-00009850
From: john l denny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that further litigation in the Microsoft case is
undesirable.
John L Denny
4445 Catalina Place
Tucson AZ 85718
Prof. of Mathematics, Prof. of Radiology, Emeritus, University
of Arizona
MTC-00009851
From: web blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:26pm
Subject: ELIOT SPITZER AND DOJ NY NY WADC
YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE LETTER AS IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU ME
AND THE WWW GOPHER. REPLY O.K.
SIGNED RICHARD JOHN FRANK 1-9-2002
[[Page 25220]]
MTC-00009852
From: Erwin Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the justice department should notify the renegade
states that a settlement has been agreed upon and either join in or
go home and sulk. Those States I refer to are backing companies in
competition with Microsoft. The market is open to all who want to
compete for it, if they are not competitive, they have only
themselves to blame.
Please put this issue to bed now.
Erwin D. Brown
MTC-00009853
From: Jean (038) Gene Millsaps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To the Honorable Court:
As an interested software user and occasional application
developer (novice), I write to protest the proposed settlement in
United States Department of Justice vs. Microsoft.
Microsoft's monopolistic practices have apparently crippled
software publishers Corel (office suite) and Netscape (web browser),
and perhaps others of which I am not aware, yet no remedy is
proposed to compensate the damage to their stockholders or
successors. In my opinion, a true remedy would restore these damaged
firm's products to a market-equal position and let the firms duel
fairly in the marketplace.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gene Millsaps
131 Sport Court
Mooresville, NC 28117-5506
MTC-00009854
From: Don Granston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it's past time for us to get this behind us.
We have reviewed the settlement and think that it would be in
the best interest of all parties to settle this NOW!!! Don't we have
more important thing to do then to find unreasonable fault with one
of our countries for thinkers?
You are always going to find a small minority that is out for
their best interest, and not for the betterment of everyone.
Microsoft has helped us little people get connected, and without
their work for many people today wouldn't be on the internet. It's
our choice who we use and Microsoft doesn't dictate as many people
think.
Let's settle now!!!
Don Granston
MTC-00009855
From: Jason R Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:14pm
Subject: I oppose the Microsoft settlement as it currently stands
Hello, I am a computer professional that works out of San
Francisco. I would just like to say that when Microsoft was found to
be a monopoly, I was very happy. I grew up using Microsoft and Apple
products-- starting when I was 12 years old. From that time though,
I have seen Microsoft transform from just just ``another'' software
vendor, to a company that rolls over anyone they see fit.
I was there when were being investigated by the government
during the DOS times. I was there during the ``Office wars''--which
Microsoft clearly came out ahead (I mean, if you owned the code to
the operating system, how can't you come out ahead). It didn't
suprise me to hear that other Office developers were getting API
(Application Programming Interface) documentation (and *not* getting
undocumented APIs at all--unlike the Microsoft teams) late. And the
list goes on and on and on.
So, naturally, even though I grew up with Microsoft in the
computer industry, I was naturally happy to hear they were finally
ruled a monopoly. They are. Plain and simple. I cannot buy a big
vendor computer without having to pay the 'Microsoft tax'--every
machine comes bundled with some sort of Windows Operating System.
This year, instead of buying a PC, I bought a Mac, in direct
response to the Microsoft tax. Unfortunately, my Mac does not do the
same things as my PC does, so I'm finding certain hard to
accomplish, so I have to work on my work machines that do have a
Microsoft OS on them.
For me, a computer professional, I can handle other Operating
Systems and computers. But for someone like my sister or mother and
father, that's a different story. They have no choice. They have no
recourse. They have to take what's given to them to communicate and
participate in the 'digital age'. If they had a choice, I would feel
much better.
WindowsXP: B-A-D! Another area that really raises flags that the
ruling does not cover is Microsoft's push into digital media. If
they get their way, just like in the computer industry, then I'm
sure I'll see more ``Microsoft Powered'' devices on the horizon.
Limiting my choice of audio and video codecs; image compression
algorithms; services that support these. Plus, Microsoft requires
that in order to use XP, I have to have a Passport account. This is
really scary. 2001 has been such a debacle from Microsoft in the
security arena. Yet, very few seem to be raising the issue of one
company owning a database (and their track record shows that they
are lousy at security--even their own severs) of my information. If
I buy XP, then I should own it. I should not be *required* to
register for an online ID to activate it.
For me, a computer professional, I can get around many Microsoft
issues. Over the past few years, I've watched the web start as a
platform independent medium, to a heavily Microsoft controlled one.
Another way for them to own the desktop. It is sad because if you
ask anyone who has used the web from the beginning, they will
acknowledge just how dependent it is on Microsoft Internet Explorer.
There used to be a choice, however.
Now the justice department has set, in my opinon, the wheels in
motion to let Microsoft continue on their path of, basically,
domination of the PC and media industries. There are judges that are
not qualified to make decisions on behalf of the American public
regarding this matter. They do not understand the implications of
this ruling nor the technologies involved. I for one feel that I
must voice my opinion, as a computer professional and someone who
has used countless Microsoft products over the years, and say that
this ruling is inadequate and does not do what it was intended to
do.
Microsoft has been ruled as a monopoly. This is fact and cannot
be changed. They should be now dealt with accordingly just like
other landmark cases--AT&T, Standard Oil--were. This will NOT hurt
the industry. In fact, competition is what drives our great economy.
Let's have more of it. The American people deserve it. We demand it!
Thank you.
Jason Lee
Associate Senior Software Engineer
Novo Interactive
San Francisco, CA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009856
From: wayne tynes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:18pm
Subject: Dear Sirs,
Dear Sirs,
I'm writing to you as a concerned citizen. The Microsoft trial
has been going on too long. As a taxpayer, I'm pained to see the
government used as tool of Microsoft's competitors. How can you
honestly tell people that there is a software monopoly?
Will we run out of software? Can't people write their own
software? Aren't there other operating systems to choose from that
are free? Give us a break.
Please stop spending my money this way.
Regards,
Wayne Tynes
email: [email protected]
MTC-00009857
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern.
I generally do not write E-mails on the behalf of big business.
But I find this whole Microsoft saga disturbing. I do not agree with
the idea that Microsoft should be punished or broken up. I think
that Microsoft is an industry leader, in part because of its
aggressive and forward thinking business practices, vital for
competition in a very competitive market. I for one am thankful for
what Microsoft has done. I think that the tremendous advances in
computer technology can be attributed to Microsoft.
I can assure you that if another company comes out with a
product that I read about or try and find it that I like it better
than Microsoft's version, I would certainly buy the product that I
liked.
If Microsoft feels that this latest judgment is fair, then I
would have to agree.
Thank you for your time.
[[Page 25221]]
John Horlick
MTC-00009858
From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision
Please realize that allowing Microsoft to continue its business
practices (current and past) is extremely dangerous and unfair. I
have been involved with computers for over 18 years, and I have
observed Microsoft's business practices. Although it may seem that
Microsoft's innovation is the main reason for their dominance, but
there is little that Microsoft has innovated. The company has used
its size and deep pockets to overpower smaller companies. By
protecting Microsoft, there is a risk that the industry will become
stagnant. The prospect of putting all the eggs in one basket in the
computer industry is extremely dangerous, especially with the
security track record that Microsoft has. Even the use of a single
OS in an organization can spell disaster should there be a major
casualty. Due to the advances in cross platform compatibility,
heterogeneous systems should be used to exploit each platforms
strengths.
Please consider the consequences of your actions by letting
Microsoft off the hook. The computer industry understands real well
the dangers of giving too much leeway to Microsoft. The full impact
should be considered before Microsoft is allowed to continue
unchecked.
Sincerely
Christopher R Susalis
Yorktown Virginia
MTC-00009859
From: Steve Sparrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is high time this case be settled. The government, as well as
Microsoft, continue to pay legal fees, which are ultimately paid for
by consumers. Cut the costs and get the case settled.
By the way, I don't believe consumers are complaining about
monopolistic practices of Microsoft. The complaints are coming from
businesses. I thought legal remedies for monopolies only applied,
when the public sector screams for action. Don't kill the goose that
lays the golden eggs. Microsoft is a great business that contributes
favorably to the balance of trade and is a great tax paying
corporation. Also, Microsoft's innovations have contributed heavily
to the productivity of everyone in the world.
I look forward to a prompt settlement that allows Microsoft to
stay in tack and continue to offer innovation that produces greater
productivity. Certainly, Microsoft should be required to treat
corporations and individuals fairly. As for the past, I am all for a
smack on the wrist, and let's get going. The economy could use a
shot in the arm, and I am sure Microsoft could help more, if they
were involved in this long drawn out case.
Sincerely,
Steve Sparrow
3408 Forestway Court
Arlington, TX 76001-4849
Family Phone: 817-561-1277
Personal Phone: 817-561-1323
Fax: 817-561-1339
MTC-00009860
From: Whittington, Tim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear United States Dept. of Justice,
Under the Tunney Act, I would like to provide my comments
regarding the Microsoft settlement.
As a US citizen and a tax payer, I'm very concerned and quite
frankly disappointed about the continued efforts of my government to
pursue a company that continues to innovate. Here is a company that
started with nothing, developed quality software at very competitive
prices, became successful and now the government wants to punish
them. Microsoft's software continues to deliver more features,
integrate additional applications, increase performance, all at
lower prices. As a consumer, I'm not sure how I'm harmed.
I disagree with the appeals court ruling against Microsoft, but
respect there decision. I feel the recent settlement reached is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I, along
with many others consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is
good for them, the industry and the American economy. I hope you
reach the same conclusion.
Sincerely,
Tim Whittington
VP, Premier Call Center Accounts
Intecom, an EADS Telecom Company
Bus: 972-855-8012
Fax: 972-855-8006
Pager: 800-421-8870
E mail : [email protected]
Web : www.Intecom.com
MTC-00009861
From: Robert E. Brode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:19pm
Subject: Public comment
To whom it may concern,
While I believe the Justice Department has done a heroic job in
the legal struggle against Microsoft, it would appear to me that,
once again, money talks and Corporate America will have succeeded in
screwing the little person again.
Only a brain dead person who has no clue as to the reality of
life would think that innocent little Microsoft has been put upon by
the big bad Justice Department.
Over the years, Microsoft has made every effort possible to
destroy the competition, maximize profits and force consumers to
accept faulty, less than adequate operating systems and bloated and
overpriced software. Microsoft has made very effort to become a
monopoly and has finally succeeded. There is no competitor anywhere
close to Microsoft's market share except possibly Apple (a far
better and more efficient operating system and computer) but they?re
so busy looking in the mirror admiring themselves, that they have
lost the marketing advantage they had years ago. They simply pissed
it away.
If Microsoft walks away with this we can look forward to another
20 years of non productive software, operating systems that crash at
drop of a hat and no real innovative thinking. As I recall, Bill
Gates didn?t actually design the DOS operating system. He bought it
for $50,000. No innovation there. Windows is a ?not as well done?
copy of the Apple graphic users interface. No innovation there. In
fact, wasn?t it Bill Gates who told people that ?command line
processing? was here to stay and no body would really use a mouse?
No innovation there.
Robert Brode
MTC-00009862
From: Patrick Auth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 11:37pm
Subject: Drop the Microsoft case.
Bill Clinton's administration was good for nothing other than
slowing big buisness down. I believe it's call communism !! I think
the justice department needs to find who killed Vince Foster. they
should'nt have to go far, just ask Bill. I bet he knows !
MTC-00009863
From: [email protected]. uq.edu.au@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
Washington,
USA.
RE: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make a submission with regard to the Microsoft
settlement.
First of all, this settlement has international and global
repercussions, and I hope that you can accept a submission from
someone who is not a US citizen--from the viewpoint that monopoly is
a global problem.
When there is a monopoly in software--as already ruled by the
courts--the international nature of the software market means that
the monopoly is far more extensive than the US, and causes damage
internationally.
From my point of view as a consumer, I have never had a software
product sold by Microsoft work acceptably. In every case, there were
bugs that caused data loss or worse, which Microsoft did not fix.
So, these products do not suit me, yet I find myself continually
being forced to purchase them because of the monopolistic types of
business methods used by Microsoft in Australia and elsewhere.
These methods include especially the bundling of software with
PC's, which I find highly objectionable. Why should I have to pay
for an OS and software that I never use? Yet I have no choice in
this!
The use of proprietary and nonstandard file formats is another
weapon used by Microsoft, which forces email and internet users to
adopt Microsoft software. This is objectionable, and surely illegal.
To settle with Microsoft, I suggest that Microsoft at least should
be forced to to refund the cost of unwanted software to consumers--
both for past and future purchases--in order to discourage this
monopolistic practise.
In addition I suggest that file formats be published, and MS be
enjoined to support at
[[Page 25222]]
least one internationally approved format--preferably standardised
through the W3C--in each of its high market share programs.
The idea of Microsoft donating software in settlement is out of
the question. How can a legal settlement that tends to increase the
impact of illegal activity be accepted? As a consumer, I prefer a
cash refund!
Peter Drummond. --
Physics Department, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072,
Queensland, Australia. Tel:+61-7-3365-3404 Fax:+61-7-3365-1242
[email protected]; www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/
drummond
MTC-00009864
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:46am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT THEY
WANT TO BUY AFTER ALL WE THE PEOPLE; BUY WHAT WE WANT AND THAT IS
MICROSOFT, AFTER ALL THEY HAVE THE BEST PRODUCTS AND THE GREATER
HELP NETWORK. I FEAL THAT YOU SHOULD LEAVE THEM ALONE TO DO WHAT
THEY DO FOR ALL OF US.
MTC-00009865
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: examples: open
Office file formats, Win32 APIs, make dual-boot options mandatory.
Especially this dual boot options must be addressed. You can find
more info here: http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/
byt20010824s0001/0827--hacker.html .
Mvh
Harals Jens's
MTC-00009866
From: Graeme Gott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:00am
Subject: The proposed settlement is the worst thing yet
I am forced to deal with Microsoft and their monopolistic ways
on a daily basis. I cheered when it appeared that the DOJ would
finally do something about the monopoly. And then you sold out to
Microsoft. Make no mistake, if you go through with this settlement,
the computer industry will get even worse... and the economy with
tank even more. Please reconsider your settlement. It gives
Microsoft even more loopholes without doing anything about their
anti-competive practices.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Graeme Gott
MTC-00009867
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the M$ anti trust action represents a
complete failure of the current laws to protect consumers & ensure a
level playing field for competition.
Microsoft failed to abide by the origonal judgement against
them, has clearly continued their anti competitive behaviour and has
now taken that behaviour to even higher levels with the release of
Windows XP.
The issues with XP are far wider & more serious than any
previous behaviour & this behaviour is apparently now being condoned
by this settlement which provides M$ with a platform to further
promote their products over any alternatives.
Within Australia the pricing issues alone are beyond belief. US
Court evidence indicated 50% overcharging of consumers, with
exchange rates taken into account the overcharging in Australia has
been 200% and now with XP, the removal of Domain login from the
basic/home version of the operating system, small business will be
forced to move from a $A400 operating system to an $A660 operating
system. Some 80% of small business is affected & the cost worldwide
will run into $USBillions. The pricing of the M$ component of any PC
price has risen in a market of dramatically increasing volumes, the
opposite of normal market behaviour where shipment volumes increase.
This has been possible due to the monopoly position. In some
cases the M$ component is now 50% of PC manufacturing Price.
There is also an element of using US PC manufacturers to engage
in product dumping into the international market to the detriment of
international PC assemblers. The court evidence indicates some US
manufacturers purchased NT4 Operating System at $US20 where local
manufaturers in Australia were being charged $A320 ($US160)
The schools concerned could utilise free open source software
rather than waste money on M$ software & thus free up resources for
additional hardware or teaching resources.
Throughout the current case M$ has been clearly in contempt of
the courts in their actions which have been designed to ensure that
it was not possible to recall or change products in the field with
the browser (as distinct from the HTML rendering engine &
communications utilities) embedded in the Operating Systems. The
W98SE & Windows ME releases along with various Browser updates have
been dubbed ``The DOJ releases'' with good reason.
This case has been a classic example of how a Corporation can
use delaying tactics in the courts to their advantage & profit from
those tactics. This proposal for settlement should be withdrawn and
a regime which ensures an open standards interface approach is
adopted with full disclosure of all API's for application services &
network services put in it's place. Penalties which reflect the
magnitude of the crime and recover the revenue improperly gained by
M$ during the case should also be put in place
In addition to the above a public list of areas in which people
believe M$ has/is acting improperly should be initiated. There are
numerous areas in which this has been the case & the current case
has only brushed the surface. A public list/discussion board is the
only way in which the technical details of how M$ has acted
anticompetitively will ever be fully disclosed or determined.
Competition law will not be treated with any respect by
Corporations unless this settlement is revised
Wayne Carruthers
MTC-00009868
From: Thomas Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR, attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/10/02 5:52am
Subject: Concerning the Microsoft Antitrust Case
To whom it may concern,
The antitrust case against Microsoft is of huge importance to
the public, and I believe that the public should be made aware of
the findings against Microsoft, along with the details of the case.
I believe that Microsoft's consistent and aggressive business
tactics have hurt the competitors and consumers in many ways.
I'd be happy to expand on my statement, however I am certain you
receive many emails, and probably know much more than I do in this
area anyways.
Thanks for your time,
Thomas P. Fuller Jr.
3425 West 83rd Street
Chicago, IL
USA
MTC-00009869
From: Double 'S'
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of the Spanish Speaking BeOS Community.
I have been promoting BeOS among friends and small companies for
2 years now, and are now helping to bring BeOS (now from PALM) back
again to the community.
But to get people really using BeOS or to get more people or
small companies trying out BeOS, some changes are needed in
Microsoft policies.
One drawback for novice computer users to try out BeOS or any
other OS is the lack of easy of coexistence with Microsoft Operating
Systems, aggravated in the new releases which deliberately kick out
of the computer during install any bootmanager other than Microsoft.
In Windows Me the BeOS Windows Compatible Loader does strangely
``not work anymore''.
The other main problem is the license policy of Microsoft
Proprietary File Formats. Since MS Office Suite has a huge market
share, it's almost impossible for Small Offices to work in team with
other companies if they are not able to open (and save to) Microsoft
file formats. This is also the case for the many Microsoft
Proprietary Media File Formats used on the Internet.
While Microsoft often license their File Formats or Technology
to companies that endorse MS Windows, they deliberately do not to
companies that endorse other Operating Systems.
It will be almost impossible under these Microsoft practices for
BeOS to gain market again if:
[[Page 25223]]
- Microsoft does not use a more flexible Licensing of their File
Formats (Office and Media / Internet)
- Microsoft don't stop bringing competing new file formats and
implementing them by brute force to compete with already good
multiplatform file formats of other companies
- Microsoft Windows Installer and Bootmanagers keep deleting other
Bootmanagers and Loaders.
I do respect the effort and market gain of Microsoft, but many
tactics have forced better solutions of competing companies out of
the market, and they seem not to endorse any Technology that
improves quality of computing for all users worldwide if this
technology is not in their very best economical interest.
Double 'S' a.k.a. Mr. Sanchez
[email protected]
[email protected]
MSN Messenger [email protected]
ICQ--95140266
MTC-00009870
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:22am
Subject: Microsoft penalty
Dear Sirs,
It is ludicrous to believe for one moment that allowing
Microsoft (MS) to donate its old stockpiles of outdated computer
hardware and software to ``underprivileged schools'' is an
appropriate penalty for a decade long multi billion dollar monopoly
that to this very minute is still exercising its dominating
influence around the world in every arena of the computer field.
From component manufacturers to OEM's to distributors the computer
industry is wrapped around microsoft's little finger. The latest
release of windows xp is excellent example of the continuing
violations of its unethical and unfair behavior. Windows XP
purposely was designed so that AOL's internet browser would not
function or even appear on the windows startup screen. AOL was
forced to create a new revision that would work with WinXP and then
had to try to bargain with OEM's to include it as a option on their
preloaded retail computers. Please look beyond the short sightedness
of the nine states agreeing to this paltry ``fine'' and take action
to enforce a real penalty that removes MS ability to continue in
such a dominating manner. Ten to fifteen year old computers and
softwares will do nothing to increase the education of disadvantaged
children primarily because none of it is compatible with anything
that MS current produces. Such an education in nothing is a waste of
childrens valuable learning time and an insult to intelligent
parents everywhere.
Benjamin R Buhanan
Police Officer
Surprise, Az
MTC-00009871
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
Both Fax's sent as requested.
Bob
MTC-00009872
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a long time consumer of Microsoft product software who
thinks that your DOJ settlement of the antitrust case was fair and
proper. I do not feel that I have paid excessively for Microsoft's
products, and have always had sufficient choice in tailoring my
software to my own needs. I do not understand the 9 states,
including my own, Florida, who want to punish Microsoft further for
its past successes. None of those power-hungry attorney generals
really has the end-user's interests in mind. Enough is enough.
One fact is sure. Microsoft will include the lawyer fees they
have paid in this law suit in pricing their future products. Please
just stop all of this lawyer-profiteering at the expense of
consumers like me--NOW! Tell the 9 states to cease and desist. By
doing so, you are looking after MY interests!
James Glenn
Daily Home Computer User
MTC-00009873
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:13am
Subject: Public coverage of M$ trail
Please fight for the right for the American people to observe
the testimony of any and all phases of the Microsoft trials. The
people deserve the right to see how this monopolistic behemoth has
abused them. I personally want to hear what Sun Microsystems has to
say at this hearing. Thank you for protecting the American Citizens
rights in this matter.
MTC-00009874
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We firmly believe that this settlement as proposed is good for
the company, for the country, and especially good for those of us
who have come to depend on Microsoft as a leader and innovator. No
company should be punished for being heads and shoulders above its
competitors. This country was founded on free enterprise and
competition. If Microsoft is able to give us wonderful new tools
with which to communicate, then they should be allowed to do that
without obstruction. If their competitors want a piece of the
action, they should get smarter, not look for handouts from the
Government. We buy Microsoft products because they are the best, and
we have never been disadvantaged by Microsoft's marketing or
management.
Please leave them alone to create new and even better products
for us.
Marie and Fred Kraemer [email protected]
MTC-00009875
From: DR(u)Ammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
1263 Monticello Avenue
Hermitage, PA 16148
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
After three years of litigation, I am pleased that Microsoft and
the government have finally decided to settle the antitrust suit. It
will benefit the entire IT industry in the long run, and will give a
great breath of fresh air to the economic doldrums we are currently
experiencing.
Tort reform is needed in all areas of our legal system. It is
becoming impossible to function from medicine,dentistry and even in
non profit situations.It's the money not the (joke) statement.
Under the agreement, computer manufacturers are granted new
opportunities to configure systems with access to various Windows
features, such as those accessed by Windows Messenger and Windows
Media Player. These programs can now be easily replaced with
competing products.
Also, Microsoft is allowing computer makers to make it easier to
install non-Microsoft software, and to disclose information about
certain internal interfaces in Windows. Finally, a ``Technical
Committee'' will guarantee that all this actually happens.
This agreement is both fair and reasonable. My tax dollars
should be used to tackle the more important issues affecting the
country. I trust that the Justice Department will not seek another
round of action against Microsoft on the federal level.
Sincerely,
Raymond Ammer
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00009876
From: Rich King
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02 8:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
why do you what to brake up the one true American success of the
last twenty
five years!
MTC-00009877
From: Kevin McCormick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:20am
Subject: microsoft anti-trust settlement
I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed
settlement. I object most strongly to the continuation of the
``Microsoft Tax'' or the fees to Microsoft that are part of the
purchase price of many, if not all, personal computer systems sold
in the United States. Basically, the ``settlement'' is a sham since
it does not absolutely prohibit the ``percentage of sales''
licensing schemes that Microsoft has used to force its software onto
the public. PC hardware vendors such as Compaq, Dell, and Gateway
should be required to offer a ``no pre-installed software'' option
which completely avoids any costs for Microsoft licenses. However, I
believe the (In)Justice Department currently is little more than an
arm of giant corporations and right-wing extremists, so, in
[[Page 25224]]
a way, it is fittingly ironic that the corruption of Justice results
in the imposition of inferior software at inflated costs. In
politics you get what you pay for, but in PC's you pay for what you
get.
Thank you,
Kevin McCormick
MTC-00009878
From: James Urie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:52am
Subject: Antitrust settlement.
You guys and girls should be ashamed of yourselves. The best
analogy that I can give to what Microsoft is doing to the
marketplace and the consumer is: what their lawyers have done to
you. You couldn't win and neither can we.
Funny thing is is that by all respects you could have done the
right thing in this case, we have no choice.
MTC-00009879
From: William R. Cwynar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The time has come to move forward and settle this matter. If we
were to take a serious look, as to when our economy began to falter,
it would probably fall very close to the time when the government
initiated these actions against Microsoft. And, because of it the
entire technology field has suffered. Please settle this case once
and for all. Everyone likes to criticize and attack winners, and the
majority of them are followers not leaders (as is Microsoft).
I stand with Microsoft and its Chairman Bill Gates and urge the
government to put and end to this unjustified act.
Respectfully,
William R. Cwynar
MTC-00009880
FROM: Ken Sherman
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/10/02 9:21am
SUBJECT: MS Settlement
Guy Carpenter
Guy Carpenter & Company of Pennsylvania
Two Logan Square Telephone (215)864-3600
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Facsimile (215)636-9929
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing concerning the settlement negotiated between
Microsoft and the Justice Department. After three long years of
litigation, this settlement represents an opportunity to more
forward. The entire IT sector is ready to move on and get back to
business, but it seems that there are those who still want to hold
up the process.
This settlement is very strong and requires Microsoft to make
many changes. For example, Microsoft will be required to disclose
information concerning certain internal interfaces in Windows.
Microsoft's competitors will also be free to sue Microsoft if they
feel the company is not complying with the agreement. Beyond that,
Microsoft has agreed to be monitored throughout the entire process
to ensure that they are following proper procedure.
The concessions that Microsoft has made speak volumes to the
fact that they want to help the IT sector get back to business. Let
us help support the agreement by letting the terms speak for
themselves. let us help not only our technology industry, but all
industries which utilize technology such as insurance and finance,
move forward and help get our economy back on track.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Sherman, CPCU, ARe
Senior Vice President
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00009881
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:24am
Subject: My thoughts regarding the Microsoft Settlement
the anti-trust campagne of microsoft is a damn shit.it is
unbelivabel why microsoft think the people would trust a company
whose company-politic is only spying, lying and changing results of
studies. with their anti-trust campagne they make it only more
worst.
ps: what the fuck do u think should mean: ``americans for
technology leadership''!? the usa-flag is not the symbol for every
country on america! the people who live in mexiko, kanada, peru,
brasil, etc. are also americans!
MTC-00009882
From: Tim(038)Sharon Daniels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:28am
Subject: response to tunney act
To whom this may concern, my comment is simple.microsoft has
been declared a monopoly.With out adequate competition the consumer
has been harmed in at least two distinct ways.
1: lack of choice. 2: lack of robust, quality, products that do
not have flaws that can cause loss of data and productivity.When I
was a child, I was never given the right to negotiate my punishment
when found out. why is this happening with microsoft. At your heart
you are the last voice of justice, if you dont stand who will?Please
restore proper competition to the market place.Do the right thing.
MTC-00009883
From: James Mitchell Ullman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:39am
Subject: Public interest
Greetings,
I am a concerned citizen who has been following the Federal
Antitrust case against Microsoft and have, as is my civil duty, some
things I would like to be made known to the judge.
I am a technologist of several years experience and have noticed
many trends in the industry which, to me, seemed less than right,
much less legal. Microsoft is not the only company in this industry
which has created, using underhanded tactics and most certainly
illegal procedures, a monopoly of sorts. But, as has been the case
in the past, Microsoft has been found guilty of not only breaking
the law, but also damaging the economy in such a way that it may
take decades for us to recover. I do not think that the government
should have anything to do with the internal proceedings of the
company as that would be fascism. I do, however, think that just as
a war criminal who has committed crimes against all of humanity
should make reparations to their enemies, that Microsoft Corporation
should be punished.
They have been let off of the hook before for the same reasons,
yet when they are brought to court again, they are tried yet again
instead of punished. Now, here we are at a major turning point in
the case and they are asking that the public, which they harmed
directly, should not be allowed to see nor hear the testimony
against them. What ends are they trying to meet with this tactic?
Possibly to shield themselves against the public outcry if they were
to be let off again(as in the case of the over-lenient settlement
between one-half of the prosecuting states and the Federal
government)? I can testify plainly that Microsoft is an illegal
monopoly on several industrial fronts, as I am forced daily to fix
their problems which they force on the people of the United States
of America who wish to use technology to get their jobs done in a
timely, efficient manner. I have previously written mentioning an
open letter written by Ralph Nader about the evanescent settlement
in this case, but now I am petitioning that there be public access
to the witness questioning. I am taken aback by the arrogance of
Microsoft Corporation's demand, not request, that the Publicity in
Taking Evidence Act of 1913 is deemed nonapplicable to their current
status in court whereas it was previously found that it was under
nearly the same circumstances. The public must know what is going
on. They deserve to know, they have the right to know.
Thank you very much for your time,
James Mitchell Ullman
Technical Specialist I
Zach S. Henderson Library
Georgia Southern University
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/jmullman
Office: 912-681-0161
MTC-00009884
From: judhug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:48am
Subject: End Anti- Initiative Prosecution
The case against Microsoft should immediately be concluded.
It gives the nation an idea that initiative and success is going
to be punished.
Hugh W Pagett
681 Hawkins School Hs Rd
Xenia, Ohio 45385
MTC-00009885
From: Aaron Alberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
[[Page 25225]]
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
``The Proposed Final Judgment will provide a prompt, certain and
effective remedy for consumers....'' To Whom It May Concern:
I fully support the settlement that Microsoft has agreed to.
Prompt, certain and effective remedy for comsumers will only be the
direct result of a final judgement to which Microsoft agrees or that
is in Microsoft's favor. Please finish this lawsuit quickly so that
Microsoft can go on satisfying their customers, like me, by
producing top quality software. Microsoft should not have to waste
money on frivolous lawsuits like these. Having thoroughly studied
the economics of competitive advantage, it is clear that the case
against Microsoft is based on shoddy economics at best. Stop
prosecuting successful corporations and get tough on criminals.
Sincerely,
Aaron Alberg
9027 W. Shorewood Dr.
Apt. 603
Mercer Island, WA 98040
MTC-00009886
From: Louis Ferreira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Though the majority of Linux lovers are posting this E-mail
address in order to stop Microsoft's Settlement, I am all for it.
Many people do not understand how important Microsoft is to today's
high-tech world. Though I do not agree with there practices it is
due to your poor judgment that the problem has become this big. If
something was done years ago when apple had a good share of the
market then maybe some good would have came from it, but as of today
no good can come of punishing Microsoft. The reason I believe this
is because Microsoft has established the standard and that is what
is needed for computers to grow. The reason why other OS' can't
compete against them now is because of this issue. Microsoft was
never the best software and neither is Linux or Mac OS, but it is
all that we have now. The hopes of other OS' like BEOS are nothing
more then a dream now. Companies like this that seek to innovate
must maintain reverse compatibility and yet they can not because any
emulation of Windows that they try usually ends up much slower then
windows. Probably the best thing you can do to Microsoft is make
them release the code needed for other OS' to use windows
applications, that way the best OS will win no matter what Microsoft
does about it.
Just My 2 Cents
Louis W Ferreira III
MTC-00009887
From: Frank D'Angeli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsft public deposition
Your Honor,
Since MS declares that they are so important to the US and the
economy and that they are such innovators, blah, blah, blah, I would
like my right as a US citizen and computer user enforced which
allows me to hear the depositon of MS executives.
It was Bill Gates deposition which allowed the public to see the
depth of Microsoft's soul and we should be allowed to see what the
company that wants to control every aspect of our life is trying to
hide from us. Please allow every fact about MS' predatory,
monopolistic behavior be known to all that were hurt by them.
Respectfully,
Frank D'Angeli
57 Pinkert Street
Medford,MA 02155
781.396.5815
MTC-00009888
From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James J. Trageser
181 Sheldon Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
The intention of this letter is so that I may go on record as
being a supporter of the proposed settlement that the Microsoft
Corporation and the Department of Justice arrived at last November.
The settlement brings an end to the three-year-old antitrust dispute
that was costing both Microsoft and the federal government millions
of dollars in court costs. I'm sure that Microsoft actually had to
concede more than they would have liked in the settlement. In fact,
the settlement places restrictions and obligations on technologies
and products of Microsoft that were not even mentioned in the
lawsuit at the beginning. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the
technology mentioned in the settlement hadn't even existed when the
lawsuit was started! However, the IT industry will benefit from this
settlement and so will the economy. It will generate competition by
letting Microsoft's competitors in on trade secrets such as software
codes that help programs run better on Windows, making their
software run more effectively. I am pleased to see that the federal
government and Microsoft could agree to terms, and I support the
settlement that was reached. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James J. Trageser
CC: Senator Rick Santorum
Guy Carpenter & Company of Pennsylvania
Two Logan Square
Telephone (215) 864-3600
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Facsimile (215) 636-9929
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing concerning the settlement negotiated between
Microsoft and the Justice Department. After three long years of
litigation, this settlement represents an opportunity to move
forward.
The entire IT sector is ready to move on and get back to
business, but it seems that there are those who still want to hold
up the process.
This settlement is very strong and requires Microsoft to make
many changes. For example, Microsoft will be required to disclose
information concerning certain internal interfaces in Windows.
Microsoft's competitors will also be free to sue Microsoft if they
feel the company is not complying with the agreement. Beyond that,
Microsoft has agreed to be monitored throughout the entire process
to ensure that they are following proper procedure. The concessions
that Microsoft has made speak volumes to the fact that they want to
help the IT sector get back to business. Let us help support the
agreement by letting the terms speak for themselves.
Let us help not only our technology industry, but all industries
which utilize technology such as insurance and finance, move forward
and help get our economy back on track.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Sherman, CPCU, ARe
Senior Vice President
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00009889
From: shaun arral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:17am
Subject: They are making fools of you
Lied in court.
falsify evidence.
bought your opinion (the settlement papaers).
``The sun, the moon, the stars
Is that what you're thinking that you are
As I'll disintegrate over time
If I expect my body to try and keep up with my mind
Today everything's mine'', Blind Melon
MTC-00009890
From: Jack L. Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack L. Levy
972 Cypress Drive
Delray Beach, Florida 33483
(561) 279-9099 [email protected]
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to voice my thoughts on the proposed settlement
between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I believe that this
litigation should not have been brought forth by the Justice
Department, in the first place. There are many Americans who
seriously question whether Microsoft has in fact broken any laws
that would warrant a suit that has lasted for three years, all the
while causing substantial financial hardship to the corporation and
its many investors. The federal government should leave Microsoft
[[Page 25226]]
alone, and pursue more important matters that are affecting our
nation currently. Although this company may have made mistakes
during it's rapid growth, no one can question the substantial
contribution that Microsoft has made to the computer industry. There
are many people who believe that the operating systems created by
Microsoft may very well be the chief reason for the viability of one
of our largest and most successful industries.
I believe that the settlement that has been reached is both fair
and reasonable to everyone involved. Microsoft will be making
numerous changes with its software and business practices. For
example, some of the changes include but are not limited to the
following: better relations with computer makers and software
developers, internal interface disclosure, and a three-person
technical committee to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the
settlement. The recession has had a devastating effect on both
government and industry. Many private investors have suffered non-
recoverable losses, especially those who have invested in the
technology sector. It is extremely important that the technology
industry be allowed to concentrate on improving business, and not
defending what many feel to be frivolous lawsuits. It is in the best
interests of everyone involved to see this settlement enacted as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Jack L. Levy
MTC-00009891
From: Heins, Jill
To: `Microsoft.atr (a) usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end the Clinton-era Anti-trust legal abuse. The Microsoft
trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers,
and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
Consumers would rather see competition encouraged. The investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them,
the industry, and the American economy. I support the Microsoft
settlement.
Sincerely,
Jill M. Heins
7833 Garnett
Lenexa, KS 66214
jill.heins@vetmedpub. com
MTC-00009892
From: Joe Amoroso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As a citizen, I find it very disheartening that so many states
seem to see this suit as a means of generating revenue. The facade
of protecting the ``public interest'' when really acting to put $$
in the State's Treasury is in itself a fraud against the public
interest.
This is not the only instance of such behavior by the several
states and I would ask the Justice system to recognize this
transparent money-grab and deal fairly, openly and honestly with the
issue at hand--i.e. what damage has been caused to the citizens--
this is the essence of ``public'' interest; State Treasuries and
their viability, although, are a ``public interest'' issue, robbery
of private corporations to maintain such Treasuries is not.
joseph amoroso
pobox 22421
baltimore, md 21203
410-659-0097
MTC-00009893
From: David W. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a student at Boston University, and I am upset about the
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft
(PFJ).
First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards.
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to
overturn this settlement.
Sincerely,
David W. Hill
Brighton, Massachusetts
MTC-00009894
From: Delmonte, Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:18am
First of all thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns.
My main focus is the pattern that Microsoft has exhibited over
the 15 years that I have been involved in the IT arena.
The first negative experience was one which happened with a
company called Stacker, in which it was proved that Microsoft had
illegally used their file compression scheme, by the time the issue
was settled the company no longer was viable and in fact is no
longer in existence.
The next example is the competition between Microsoft and
Netscape and how in a variety of actions which I am sure you are
familiar made the company loose most of it's relevance in the PC
arena, it still has a presence in the Linux arena, but that may
change as well depending on how Microsoft handles that or is allowed
to handle that arena in the future.
The main problem I see is one of ethical behavior, they do push
the limits and go beyond as in the Stacker case in every area that
they see is important, and one may think that this is how business
is done, the stronger survive. But when it is at the cost of
innovation by individuals or small concerns, which Microsoft is
eliminating more and more due to it's size and influence, I think
that the American public and entrepreneurs have lost incredible
opportunities due to what I consider predatory behavior.
The level of excitement due to opportunities available to
individuals in the 1980's was palpable across the whole Silicon
Valley in which I worked at the time, as the 1990's approached this
level of entrepreneurship decreased steadily.
Some of it is due to the maturing of the industry, some of it
due to standardization all of which are good. But much of it has to
do with Microsoft getting involved in so many areas of the personal
computer arena that it left less and less space for the smaller less
financially endowed institutions to contribute to the progress of a
field that still has wonderful opportunities if this level of
entrepreneurship is allowed to flourish again.
Unfortunately much of this has been squelched in the US, but
with the arrival of Linux and what it can contribute and has
contributed from many areas across the globe there is some activity
in this entrepreneur-friendly environment that has received a lot of
focus in the last couple of years.
I would suggest that the American technologists would be much
more interested in putting an effort again into the IT arena if a
more favorable environment was fostered by curtailing some of the
more obvious actions that Microsoft has taken, and I am sure that
that venture capitalists would support this effort since the rewards
are still very high.
What I would suggest is to split the company into separate
entities in all senses, applications and operating systems are two
of the ones that have been suggested.
And if Microsoft wants to enter a new arena in the computer
industry (and that has to be based on a well-defined criteria) then
the amount of money they can put in that concern cannot be more than
the best financed institution that is already present in that arena.
If none are in existence a criteria for that has to be established
as well, so that other can compete on equal footing.
Once that concern is established Microsoft cannot contribute any
further funds, otherwise it would perpetually be competing in an
arena even it's efforts were not successful, creating an artificial
concern and hampering competitiveness.
If the company failed they should not be permitted to enter that
arena for a pre-specified amount of time, to allow those who had
good ideas to flourish without the annoyance of having another
company artificially affecting the competitive environment to that
specific arena.
I understand that this may have a short-term (1-2 years) effect
on the economy, but the long-term effects would be a healthy,
creative, growing and dominating industry for the US.
Tom Delmonte
WorldCom--Revenue & Segment Reporting
E-mail: [email protected]
Voice: (719) 535-1562
vnet: 622-1562
MTC-00009895
From: Olie Echevarria
[[Page 25227]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft pre-trial hearing motion
To whom it may concern,
In light of the Microsoft motion to bar the public from pre-
trial hearings, I humbly ask that court deny the motion. Here is why
I believe that the motion should denied.
In my opinion, as a citizen of the United States of America,
obedient and tax paying citizen, it is my right to know what is
going in the American judicial system. We are a society of
information that is readily available to anyone. Microsoft wants to
deny the citizens of this nation information that it would deem a
public relations nightmare because of the current anti-trust
proceedings that are occurring against it. This information, the
pre-trial hearings, is not a privilige but a right to all citizens
of this country since this will show their american tax dollars at
work.
The Attorney Generals and judge doing their job. I urge you deny
this motion without question. Thank you,
Your obedient citizen,
Orlando Echevarria
Orlando Echevarria
Webmaster
E-Mail: [email protected]
MTC-00009896
From: Doris Lippincott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to you regarding the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft case. I am writing to you from a Windows platform and
through Hotmail. Although I do not consider myself a computer expert
I think that it is a long stretch to consider me a victim of
Microsoft. I appreciate what I have gotten from Microsoft and wish
that you would settle this case. In my mind, since you have the
extraordinary power of the federal government behind you, it is
incumbant on you to be extraordinarily careful not to misuse this
power for personal aggrandizement or to back those who feel the heat
from Microsoft's innovation.
Robert H. Lippincott, Jr.
MTC-00009897
From: pobox.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:52am
Subject: Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
The proposed settlement in this case is a good beginning but it
does not go far enough. While providing greater freedom to the
resellers of Microsoft Windows and systems that run Microsoft
Windows, it does nothing to insure future abuses do not occur. Due
to this, I strongly encourage the court to amend this agreement with
more stringent requirements.
Best Regards,
Tim Malloroy
MTC-00009898
From: Joshua Adam Ginsberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings--
I'm sending you a copy of an email that I send to the Attorneys
General of the states that did not agree to the proposed settlement
with Microsoft. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut,
who in my opinion is serving his constituents in the finest of
fashions, suggested that I copy you on that email. It is below.
Thank you for your time, and best of luck to you.
Sincerely,
Joshua Adam Ginsberg
Attorneys General--
First I would like to commend you and your respective states to
refusing to back down to Microsoft in light of its blatant violation
of consumer rights and anti-trust laws. You do your constituents a
great service.
As a member of the technology community, I'd like to provide you
with some input regarding your proposals to the court that might
help you better understand some of the interests of those most
affected by your proposals.
I think it's a safe thing to say that it would be
counterproductive towards punishing monopolistic practices by
extending a monopoly. The rumors that you will propose that
Microsoft be required to continue developing MS Office for the MacOS
seem to suggest you agree.
In this light, let me point you to http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press--usschools.html
To summarize this article's contents, RedHat Linux Systems has
proposed an alternative to the settlement the DOJ and other states
have accepted. Instead of extending the Microsoft monopoly by
letting them install more copies of Windows across our nation's
poorest schools, RedHat proposes that the money that would have been
spent on purchasing more copies of Windows and more support for them
be used to purchase more hardware, and RedHat will donate copies of
Linux and provide support at no cost. Students would be exposed to a
cutting edge desktop operating system and be enlightened to the
software world outside the Microsoft monopoly.
And even requiring MS to develop Office for Linux (as it's been
reported you seek) would be fruitless, because Linux users have
available to them complete Office suites for free with as much
functionality as the Microsoft suites. Examples are the GNOME Office
Suite (http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office) the KOffice Suite (http://
www.koffice.org) and most notably Sun's StarOffice (http://
www.sun.com/staroffice).
Again I commend your resolve to find the right solution as
opposed to the easy solution. I appreciate your openness to
suggestion. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joshua Ginsberg
MTC-00009899
From: DR Basso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement proposal
The proposed Microsoft settlement is a fraud on the consumers of
this country. It does not adequately address the practices the
company undertook to draw public scrutiny in the first place and it
rewards the monopoly with a backdoor entrance into one of the major
areas of technology where it lags behind its competitors ? the
education market. Far from reigning in a conglomerate that used its
market position to terrorize competitors, this settlement gives
Microsoft an even larger market share in education.
The software proposed is almost entirely for Windows computers.
The offer provides only a very limited selection for competing
operating systems such as Mac OS.
Public school officials, under the gun to get the most ``stuff''
they can get for as little money, will have little choice bu to take
up this offer ? thereby expanding the company's reach and dealing a
severe blow to firms such as Apple.
Besides Apple, however, there are other firms that make software
that compete with the items Microsoft proposes to offer schools. Why
should those firms be injured in the form of fewer sales by a
settlement that is meant to punish Microsoft? It makes no sense to
try and increase competition by injuring the competitors you seek to
aid.
Also, why should schools have to settle for refurbished and
outdated computers. If Microsoft really plans to offer computers to
schools, it should be ordered to purchase new machines that will
have a long shelf life (in the relative world of computers).
Refurbished machines probably already are near the end of their
useful life in regards to what new programs they may be able to run.
Finally, I believe the total value of the settlement is far
below the actual damage done to competitors. The value should be
increased, perhaps even doubled.
Daniel R. Basso
MTC-00009900
From: Kayler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am in favor of the settlement. I would like to see the
litigation ended. I think it's been bad for the economy. I wish the
whole thing had never been started in the first place.
Kayler
``A proper concept of government is a voluntary one.''
``The only true revolution is Capitalism--the Liberal
Revolution.''--Andrew J. Galambos
Join the discussion of Freedom at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
volitional--science
Check out true freedom at:
http://www.bridgetofreedom.com
The importance of gratitude:
http://www.e-gratitude.com/home/index.cfm'sourcegid=100100129
MTC-00009901
From: marty (038) janet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Didn't the Government also cause us to have all these ``Baby
Bell Telephone Company's'' by breaking up AT&T. The Quality of
services went down and prices went up. My mail now takes two to
three times longer to get to me than when a stamp cost .10 cents.
And it never got lost back then
[[Page 25228]]
either. Now they want another price increase for slower, incompetent
service. The Government needs butt out of Microsoft's pocket, and
business and allow business to flourish. It's good for our economy.
Marty Turner
MTC-00009902
From: F P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:32pm
Subject: Final Judgment
I do not believe that the proposed Final Judgement (http://
www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/nov01/11-02settlement.asp) serves
the public interest. Section J.1. is of particular concern, since it
could be used to limit the usefulness of non-Microsoft middleware,
applications, or even other computers trying to interact with these
sections of API or Communications Protocols, and help ensure that
Microsoft can continue to extend its monopoly on such products by
keeping this information secret. Since none of the listed items
benefit significantly from secrecy (good security is difficult to
break even with full disclosure), I believe that these should be
made available to allow fair competition in the future, with the
single exception of individual keys for Microsoft Middleware for the
purpose of protecting their identity.
I also note a distinct lack of any penalty for Microsoft's past
actions that made them an illegal monopoly.
I believe that some form of remedy should be used, to reduce the
chance that Microsoft or another corporation attempts to use simular
practices in the future. As a split of the company has been
rejected, I'd recommend a monetary remedy.
Frederick H. Page
1305 Kathy Drive
Yardley, PA 19067
MTC-00009903
From: Glen DeGarmo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First, a personal comment from a long-time computer user: I
think the proposed settlement is little more than political window
dressing given Microsoft's well documented illegal activities as the
9,000 pound gorilla monopoly of computer operating systems.
Microsoft's practice of bundling applications with its Windows OSs
has as its ultimate goal eliminating competitors and establishing
Microsoft as the sole provider of software for desktop computers.
Microsoft's use of the term ``innovations'' to justify this practice
is sheer nonsense...there is no innovation worthy of the term. The
proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's illegal
operations which effect tens of millions of consumers.
Second, proposed additional remedies:
(1) Require Microsoft market and make readily available to all
consumers ``clean'' versions of its desktop operating systems with
NO bundled applications. By ``clean'' I mean OSs that have been
completely stripped of all non-OS applications (e.g., browser, cd
burner, multimedia applications, etc., etc.). Do not permit, under
the definition of the term ``clean,'' any application not absolutely
required for the core OS to operate properly or any application that
later can be removed without effecting the core operation of the OS
if the consumer chooses. Microsoft's attorneys will find loopholes
if the definition is not explicit. By clean, I mean CLEAN.
(2) Require Microsoft to make public all the ``hooks'' to all
its currently supported, and future, OSs to permit other software
developers to design applications that work seamlessly with all
currently supported and future Microsoft, desktop OSs. That
requirement should mandate information about ``hooks'' be made
readily available to all non Microsoft designers of applications
during the earliest design of beta versions of any new desktop OS,
and mandate that updates be made immediately available as a new OS
proceeds through development and testing. The requirement must
include information about ALL the hooks that Microsoft's designers
of applications use to make Microsoft's own, or sponsored,
applications work seamlessly with its desktop OSs...NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Glen DeGarmo, Ph.D.
732 Madison St. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110
(505) 266-6472
MTC-00009904
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
AG Ashcroft,
It is time that this dog is laid to rest, it will just not hunt
anymore. Microsoft has been an innovator in technology and it is not
required that they be punished. Let this competitor driven attempt
die, it is time to move on.
Please let it be heard that I am one of many Americans whom
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to
settle this lawsuit
Respectfully,
Bruce Mann
CANAC
(281) 588-3160 (phone)
(281) 588-3041 (fax)
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.canac.com
``Leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science
of managements says is possible.''
General Colin Powell
MTC-00009905
From: H. Leslie Priday
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:35pm
Subject: I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust
I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
MTC-00009906
From: Ralph crosswhite
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/10/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Federal Government can be more responsive to
the claimants in this ``Settlement'', and void the ``Settlement'' as
it is at this time. Microsoft needs to be made aware of how serious
their Anti-Trust actions have affected their competitors, and the
Voting Public.
The penalities imposed are not severe enough, nor do they change
the business practices of Microsoft to a more ethical standard.
Breaking up the company may be too severe, however large
monetary fines, and the restriction from engaging in any outside
enterprise that is now competitive, should be included.
Ralph Crosswhite
MTC-00009907
From: Ben /Joyce Loving
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to stop persecuting Bill Gates and Microsoft for
being smart and able, and doing things to help all the world. It is
ridiculous to spend taxpayer money to prosecute this company for
antitrust activities. I use their software and also use software of
competing companies which is fully compatible with Microsoft
products.
Stop the mindset of punishing the smart people who do good. They
do not owe anything to the less smart and less energetic. Everyone
has choices--it is up to each one of us to exercise these choices in
the best and most productive manner for us.
Make a choice NOW!
[email protected]
MTC-00009908
From: Mike Lindley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:47pm
Subject: Do they own you, too?
HI,
If this gets read, I appreciate your time. Microsoft Corporation
has been abusing its position for years and years, this case just
happen to be brought forth.
They were found guilty in the Apple-threat part of the original
case and that alone is evidence of their monopolistic practices.
Compaq, Dell, Gateway, e-Machines, Hewlett-Packard,etc. All must
do the bidding of Microsoft because without the OS, they can't sell
their computers.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not let this company live by their own
rules simply because they were clever enough to figure out how to
control the market.
The fact that they have managed to eak Apple out of the school
market and the graphics market is evidence enough NOT of the quality
they put out but because of the THEIR ABILITY TO THREATEN THE
MARKETPLACE. They were even found guilty of libel when they put an
ad campaign out against Novell when Novell took over Cambridge
Technology Partners.
It should be obvious enough: They have 96.4% of the WORLD MARKET
SHARE in operating systems. Even AT&T never had it that good.
STOP THEM OR THEY WILL OWN US ALL. They only want to rule the
world and if not stopped, they will.
Thanks,
Mike Lindley
[[Page 25229]]
MTC-00009909
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:53pm
Subject: settlement
Hello, this email is to share my opinion that the proposed
settlement with microsoft is NOT in the public interest. The
settlement does very little to detour microsoft from further illegal
operations, and does not adequately punish microsoft for it's past
actions.
Thank you,
David Lantz
CAD/CAM/MIS
Protech Armored Products
158 Hubbard Ave
Pittsfield, MA, 01201
413.684.3104 (phone)
413.684.4166
MTC-00009910
From: LOIS AMACHER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1-10-2002
As a consumer, I would like to express my hopes that this
antitrust lawsuit be settled as soon as possible.
President Bush and Microsoft will settle if not interfered with.
I support this settlement.
Lois Amacher
Carmichael, CA
MTC-00009911
From: Roger Bowser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:54pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
sir--
i have been heavily involved in computers since 1983. i like the
windws operating system much more than any other system.
please stop this worthless prosecution started by a president
with other things on his mind. we need windows.
MTC-00009912
From: Robert G Kraatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mr. Ashcroft:
Get the government (State and Federal) off the back of
Microsoft! Bill Gates and Microsoft have done more positive things
for this country than all of posturing people in our Senate
combined.
We need to tell our power hungry politicians to get out of the
way since only President Bush and Mr. Rumsfield seem to be both
willing and able to lead in a positive direction. You have great
promise but it is time to get out front and lead.
Robert G. Kraatz
24321 Dry Canyon Cold Creek Road
Calabasas, CA 91302
MTC-00009913
From: Kopecki, Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clearly this settlement should be accomplished. Enough already
of the competitive ``whiners'' trying to weaken Microsoft. In a free
market the fit find a way to survive and prosper. The Microsoft
technology has done more good than bad for this country. Tradeoffs
exist in all facets of the business environment. Darwinism occurs.
Microsoft should be viewed for their positive contributions to our
country and society and should not be ``punished'' excessively
because they did not always in the best interest of their
competition.
Ronald J. Kopecki
Corporate Vice President, Sales
Intecom, an EADS Telecom Company
972.855.8340 (O)
email: [email protected]
MTC-00009915
From: Sam Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is definitely time to put a stop to this nonsense about
Microsoft!
Sam Heath
[email protected]
MTC-00009916
From: thomas l easton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
Please end this ridiculous persecution of a company just because
it is successful. We have funded this prosecution long enough. The
only thing Microsoft is guilty of is making smart business
decisions.
Thank You.
Thomas l. Easton
835w. lusher ave.
Elkhart, In. 4617
219-293-2495
MTC-00009917
From: Tony Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
I request you to settle the lawsuit with MS because they are NOT
a monopoly. I am a consumer and have the option of NOT using windows
if I chose.
Please stop this unnecessary case and use the money to prosecute
real criminals.
Sincerely,
Tony Dalton
MTC-00009918
From: Duke Gersema
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To whom it may concern:
Re: Acceptance of the Microsoft settlement.
First, let me say that I am not particularly a fan of Microsoft.
They charge too much for their products, they are restrictive and
arrogant. That said, I think the whole suit against Microsoft should
never have happened and should be dismissed outright, immediately.
The current proposed settlement goes too far but should be agreed to
if it is the best resolution that can be made at this late date.
Here are my reasons:
The Justice Department has far better things to do,
This lawsuit has drained too much time and money from the
taxpayers,
Microsoft is already systematically ``shooting itself in the
foot'' and will not retain its market dominance.
Though arrogant, Microsoft has increased the productivity of
businesses exponentially and brought capabilities to people that
they did not even dream of two decades ago.
This lawsuit is supposed to ``protect the consumers'' but the
existence of Microsoft has benefited the consumer and this lawsuit
will add no protection to the American consumer.
Please accept this settlement and move on to something
productive.
Thank you for allowing my comments.
Douglas W. Gersema
[email protected]
MTC-00009919
From: John Mcdonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:06pm
Subject: ms case
The sooner the trial is over the better for everyone. At the
same time I really don't see any problem with breaking MS into
different parts. If their code is so good and developed the way they
like to claim that it is, then there shouldn't be any problem with a
separate company developing Office to run on Windows for example.
That is unless they have something to hide, and I personally suspect
they have plenty. Why is it that everything has to be incorporated
into the system. Why can't they simply develop Windows and then
programs and or applications can then be installed separately at a
later time. MS could certainly sell these other products, people
could purchase them if they want and install them at their leisure.
I'll tell you why I think they are doing it the way they are: they
are greedy bastards that only care about the bottom line.
They haven't innovated anything they've only incorporated ideas
they either borrowed or bought from someone else.
They crank out one OS after another all the while adding things
that somehow cut the competition.
Their software is so full of holes it's laughable. Patch after
patch after patch. Things that could have been prevented had they
taken the time to do it right instead of forcing it sooner to make
more money. They already have most of the PC market right? Why push
out the new stuff so fast? It's all about getting our money, why
else would they be now trying to tell us that we should pay them
monthly or whatever for a service. What exactly are they going to
offer that doesn't already exist. Nothing, they'll resole an old
shoe and push it as something new. What a joke. That said thing is I
really liked 95 when it came out, but that's all changed.
MTC-00009920
From: John Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If the Government is so against you (and us), have them remove
all Microsoft products
[[Page 25230]]
from all of their computers. See how they like that!
MTC-00009921
From: mavis caracostas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
To continue this vindictive assault on Microsoft is insane! The
case is against superiority of one company over others, and has led
to the recession we are now suffering. It was ill-advised from the
inception, and I would like to see it ended ASAP.
Mavis M. Caracostas
Colorado Springs, Co.
80904
MTC-00009922
From: Joseph G. Grochowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Ashcroft:
Stop the government action against Microsoft immediately. This
has done nothing but hurt the consumer. Continuing this action begun
by a disreputable administration only further erodes the public
confidence. And stop State Attorneys General from continuing their
harmfull actions.
Joseph Grochowski
724 Ardmore Ave
Redlands CA 92374
(909)793-3495
MTC-00009923
From: Hart Slater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
If the purpose of the legal assault against Microsoft is
protection of the consumer , please explain how this ``consumer ``/
taxpayer is protected ? I lost much of my retirement nest egg
because of the stockmarket response to the DOJ action ; and,
further, I would like to know how much this suit has cost the
taxpayers, both in government costs as well as legal costs Microsoft
has had to pass on to consumers. Very costly ``protection'' !!!!
Hart Slater,
835 Shenandoah Road,
Lexington, Virginia
hart slater [email protected]>
MTC-00009924
From: Paul Greatbatch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:14pm
Subject: ...and it just keeps going on until YOU do something about
it!!
Microsoft apparently tried to rig a ZDNet UK online poll,
according to the news outlet:
``By 21 December, more than two-thirds of the respondents (69.5
percent), said they planned to deliver some applications by Web
services by the end of 2002, with a large majority of those (nearly
half the total sample) planning to use Java. Only 21.5 percent said
they planned to use Microsoft .Net-- less than the figure (23.5
percent) planning to use neither.
But by the time the poll closed, on 5 January, the position had
dramatically changed, with three quarters of voters claiming to be
implementing .Net. This apparent sudden change of heart over the
Christmas period appears to be the result of a concerted campaign
within Microsoft.
ZDNet UK logs reveal rather obvious vote rigging, and prove that
it originated from within Microsoft [...]''
Best Regards,
Paul
MTC-00009925
From: Oropeza, Jenny
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JENNY OROPEZA (D)
Assemblymember, 55th District
Long Beach, California
916/319-2055
916/319-2155 (fax)
MTC-00009925 0001
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
SACRAMENTO. CA 94249-0055
(916) 319-2055
FAX (916) 319.2155
DISTRICT OFFICE
ONE CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 320
CARSON. CA 90745
(310) 518-3324
FAX (310) 518-35,08
COMMITTEES:
AGRICULTURE
BUDGET
ELECTIONS. REAPPORTIONMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE ECONOMY
TRANSPORTATION
SUBCOMMITTEES:
CHAIR. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BUDGET SUB 5, TRANSPORTATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
SELECT COMMITTEES:
CHAIR, LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
CALIFORNIA. MEXICO AFFAIRS
CALIFORNIA PORTS
January 10, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to
consumers and businesses, as well as providing opportunities for
other software companies to develop programs for the Windows
platform. The provisions of the proposed settlement, worked out with
one of the nation's top mediators, will be good for consumers,
businesses, the tech sector and the economy as a whole.
The proposed settlement is fair. It proposes significant changes
in the way Microsoft handles its software, in addition to preventing
Microsoft from abusing the strength that it derives from its
operating system. However, the proposed settlement also allows the
company to continue innovating in all areas of software development.
I fully support the Department of Justice and the nine Attorney
Generals for their efforts to finally put an end to this case and
agree to a settlement that is in our nation's best interest.
Sincerely,
JENNY OROPEZA
Assemblymember 55th District (D--Long Beach, California)
MTC-00009925--0002
MTC-00009926
From: Mary Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General Ashcroft,
Department of Justice:
I am sending this email to urge you to settle the Microsoft
case. The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the
technology market and the entire national economy.
This case should never have been brought by the DOJ during the
Clinton administration. I have always believed that Microsoft is a
very fierce competitor in a rapidly changing technology world, and
that Microsoft has done far more good than harm to consumers. In
fact, it appears that the only ones whining and crying are those
that lost a share of the computer business due to their own
ineffectiveness, and not because Microsoft took it from them. There
is no monopoly on progressive thinking as Microsoft has done and
continues to do, and it certainly should not be a crime. Those that
cannot compete should get out of the business.
Respectfully,
Mary J. Silva
3429 Maywood Drive
Richmond, CA 94803
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009927
From: Matthew Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I am writing to ask that the Microsoft Antitrust battle be put
to an end as soon as possible. In my opinion (as well as the
majority of the public), this suit has been a witch hunt driven by
Microsoft's industry competitors from the start. Illegal
monopolistic action can not be assumed simply because of a high
market share. There was no proof of anti-competitive action, unless
you believe striving to be #1 in an industry is necessarilly anti-
competitive. The only organization in this country that has been
thwarting competition is the federal government. Please take action
to discontinue this charade immediately.
Sincerely,
Matt Jones
MTC-00009928
From: Bret Nelson
[[Page 25231]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Glacier
Atty Gen Ashcroft,
I want to thank you for your hard work for our nation under
difficult circumstances and unwarranted scrutiny.
I am writing in support to some sort of end to this expensive
ringer that Microsoft is being put through. I would say that if,
indeed, Microsoft is guilty of a crime that I would be happy to see
the perpetrators brought to justice, even if the process is costly.
However, it also seems to me that in-as-much as Microsoft has
competitors, the overall case is unjustifiable on the surface. It
appears to me that the case is a remnant of the Clinton
administration that needs to be brought to a close (we all need
closure from that administration).
I wonder how those bend on Microsoft's demise would feel if the
government had decided that rather than spending $1,000,000 on
litigation they would award $500,000 to Mircosoft's number one
competitor to develop a more competitive operating system to assure
that Microsoft hadn't such an advantage in the market place. This of
course would cut tax-payers expenditures in half. Of course, this
notion is cockeyed, but it would have shown more responsibility with
the taxpayer's purse than Janet Reno was want to do when this whole
thing started.
Once again, thank you for all your efforts. I'm glad that you
were confirmed and I feel confident that you bring a positive chord
to the new Bush chorus which is serving the country well in this
time of crisis.
As a final note, I pray that your office is concerned with
expediting the process of finding and punishing our citizen, two-
bit, homegrown terrorists. I feel very confident that we can handle
every foreign threat if only we can eliminate the threats from the
Timothy McVie's of our homeland. I'm much more concerned about
threats from within from Uni-bombers than from long-range bombers
and I fear the wrongs committed by power-hungry politicians elected
at home than from foreign regimes who exercise authority over cactus
and rocks. Most of all I fear the judgments of God more than man and
I hope that your office can hand back to the people the right to
worship God according to the dictates of their conscience wherever
they be--home, class, court or elsewhere. I believe the less we fear
man, the more apt we become to fear God again, an guiding light this
country needs--personal responsibility based on Judeo-Christian
values so that strict laws and punishments become less needed and
hense, considerably less costly to enforce.
Sincerely
NAI Capital Commercial Real Estate
Bret
Bret D. Nelson
Vice President
1712 19th Street, Suite 220
Bakersfield, California 93301
661-864-1000--phone
661-864-1011--fax
661-201-9855--mobile
[email protected]
www.naicapital.com
www.naidirect.com
MTC-00009929
From: john r. emra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Stop this constant bickering and settle this
case.
John R.Emra
3529 SE Doubleton Drive
Stuart Fl.34997-5627
MTC-00009930
From: Jane Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General Ashcroft,
I urge you to support the proposed settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft along with the 9 states who have
reached agreement.
Enough taxpayer money has been spent to harass Microsoft and
this gives us the opportunity to end it.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Smith
2104 Chestnut Hill Drive
Cinnaminson, NJ. 08077
MTC-00009931
From: Bryan Fandrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Re: Microsoft Settlement.
The U.S. Government lawsuit didn't solve a problem.
The U.S. Government is the problem.
The Sherman Act is a relic and should be repealed posthaste. The
whole procedure was a costly waste of time except for the lawyers
involved.
Settle it as leniently and expeditiously as possible to
discourage future pointless government interference.
Sincerely.
B.Fandrich.
MTC-00009932
From: Stan Dickison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With all due respect, it's time to move on. The settlement
reached by the Justice Department is perfectly fine. There are many
more important issues in which the Justice Department needs to be
involved.
Stan Dickison
MTC-00009933
From: Palmarin Merges
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US Dept. of Justice,
Leave Microsoft alone.
Stop penalizing commercial success.
If I want to buy Microsoft products, let me decide. If other
competitors want to compete they can create a better product. FREE
ENTERPRISE. LET THE CONSUMER DRIVE THE MARKET NOT THE GOVERNMENT or
whiny competitors. Stop wasting my money on this decade-long
competitor-driven persecution of Microsoft.
``The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the
technology market and the entire national economy.'' (from an ACU
article)
Do not divert any more government funds from investigating
harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies. Leave
Microsoft alone.
``The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice,
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.''
(from an ACU article) DO NOT continue this litigation.
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire
to settle this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Palmarin P. Merges
MTC-00009934
From: Kevin Kahley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:27pm
Subject: Reasons for Change
Hello,
I would like to discuss my concerns for Microsoft's continuing
monopoly and the effects upon the education of computer experts in
the future. I have a bachelors degree in computer engineering and am
currently working on a masters in computer science. During my junior
high and high school years the only machines that I used ran
Microsoft Windows. Having only used Windows until college placed a
rather large learning curve in front of me as I entered the serious
computer science arena. I am not saying that Windows is useless, my
parents happily and productivly use it. However, choices in computer
operating systems need to be widely avaliable to our younger
children so their education will not be sheltered until they reach
college. Having more choices in operating systems will widen the
schools of thought in computer science and lead to a better world
for all.
Thank you.
MTC-00009935
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The federal government should back off the case against
Microsoft. Microsoft has successfully standardized the industry for
operating systems which has allowed the unparalleled growth in
technology.
I remember when Macintosh was competing with Windows. Though
Macintosh was a better product (and I'm a 10 share Microsoft
shareholder), Windows won. That was probably the best thing to
happen to the computer industry.
Microsoft may have made some minor mistakes, but nothing that
would justify a large settlement of such a magnitude.
Evan Van Ness
[[Page 25232]]
MTC-00009936
From: James Wobser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:30pm
Subject: US Government vs. Microsoft Corp.
Dear Sirs-
Please end all legal action against the Microsoft Corp and let
the market determine the outcome.
Thank you,
James Wobser
MTC-00009937
From: Thomas E. Strickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Putting this Reno farce behind us is long overdue.
MTC-00009938
From: Merle J VanDyke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Senator Ashcroft Please settle (curtail) this legal action
of the last 9 states now.
Merle VanDyke
MTC-00009939
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mr. Attorney General:
I believe that it is a vital interest for our country that when
the Justice Department settles a case with a litigant, in Antitrust
or any other part of the department, that it ensures that it has
settled the case. It is unconscionable that the economic security of
our country be endangered by the political desires of any one of the
50 state Attorneys General. Please do your best to ensure that the
judiciary accepts the terms of your department's settlement of the
Microsoft case, and see that it is applied nationwide.
Thank you for all of your good work in this dangerous time for
our country.
Cordially,
William R. Kanninen
457 Spring Lane
Ocala, FL 34472
352-687-0123
352-895-7528 (cell)
801-409-6494 (Fax)
[email protected]
MTC-00009940
From: Steven M Stallings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mr. Attorney General,
Please stop spending taxpayer money on the competitor-driven
suit against Microsoft. I have been a professional software
developer for over thirty years and have used many software products
from many different vendors in addition to Microsoft. The
Information Industry is now at a difficult point where we cannot
afford to hamper its ability to contribute to the economy and to
enhance every aspect of government, business and personal life.
Microsoft's competitors are trying to take advantage of a few
misdeeds of this corporate giant and those competitors are no less
guilty of such misdeeds themselves. The current settlement is fair
and sufficiently addresses the past problems and provides a just
path for the future of Microsoft, its competitors and the public.
It's time that the U.S. Department of Justice and the States
Departments of Justice to move forward to other more pressing
matters.
Thanks for the service that the DOJ has provided in this lengthy
matter.
Sincerely,
Steven M Stallings
MTC-00009941
From: Jud Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:37pm
Subject: settlement
I support the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Gov.
I urge you to support it, and encourage you to pass these sentiments
along to the Federal judge. Thank you, and keep up the good work you
have been doing. You have the trust of the American people. Keep in
mind that we often are the silent majority.
Jud Cox
152 Hilltop Way
Blowing Rock, NC 28605
[email protected]
MTC-00009942
From: Joel Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust must be enforced
Dear US Department of Justice:
If we don't stop Microsoft now, we will have no choice or
innovation in the future. Microsoft has apparently bought off the
Bush Administration but we must not let that happen. Microsoft, like
robbers barons of the past, will stop at nothing to eliminate the
competition if given the chance. For example, see http://
vb.channelsupersearch.com/news/crn/32424.asp
Sincerely,
Joel Carlson,
622 6th Ave,
Fox Island, WA 98333
MTC-00009943
From: Willard Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern;
As a life-long professional in the field of computers, I wish to
register my support for the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I
believe that it encourages consumer product-choice, allows for
continued product innovation by Microsoft and other software
companies, and provides adequate safeguards to give software
manufacturers other-than-Microsoft confidence in marketing their own
products. Further, a settlement at this time is definitely in the
public interest, in that it will free Department of Justice
resources to pursue other anti-trust issues.
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their stated
desire to settle this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Willard C. Bass
MTC-00009944
From: Alexander Martinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:42pm
Subject: against proposed settlement vs. Microsoft
Dear Sirs,
As you may have noticed: I'm no US citizen, but I'm concerned
about the proposed settlement involving that Microsoft is going to
supply US schools with software and equipment to settle some court
cases against them. I'm against this because Microsoft will be able
to further spread their software and, by this, gain greater market
share than it already has. This is one step further towards a
Microsoft software monopoly and this is definitively the worst thing
that I can imagine for IT firms and home users. Some competition is
good for Microsoft (and the entire software industry) because then
they are forced to produce better software.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander Martinez
Student of Computer Science
Independant programmer
78120 Furtwangen
Germany
MTC-00009945
From: T. Aaron Metz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: I am a 26-year-old college student at
West Virginia University. I'm an active member of the community in
Morgantown, WV and I believe that I represent a good majority of
people my age with my student's lifestyle. I ask you to please end
this persecution of Microsoft. There is absolutely no wrong in being
the leader of an industry because you are the smartest and the
fastest. But, for some reason, the individuals who are fighting
against Microsoft believe that success and leadership is breaking
the law. It's not Microsoft's fault that their competitors cannot
keep up.
Because of this lawsuit, the public as a whole has suffered.
Look at the good Microsoft has done for society-Windows, easier
access to information, and better hardware to work with, to name a
few. You're probably reading this message on a Windows-run machine.
Does that mean that Microsoft has a Monopoly or just the best
product? I choose the latter and I believe that society has chosen
the latter, as well. Microsoft has the capability to drive us
through the 21st century with a fury, but this lawsuit has given
them a Model T to drive us there. LET THEM BE!
Need I mention the millions of taxpayers' dollars that have been
wasted on this lawsuit? We need to end this mess and let Microsoft
go on being successful, making money, and bettering society.
Thank you for listening to my opinion.
Sincerely,
T. Aaron Metz
MTC-00009946
From: JOHN F BRISENDINE
[[Page 25233]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement arrangment negotiated by the Bush
Administration and Microsoft. Please make every effort to end this
litigation immediately. We have much more important priorities for
our legal system to handle.
John Frederick Brisendine
Charlotte, North Carolina
[email protected]
MTC-00009947
From: scott gould
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I just wanted to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I
think that we/the United States and Local Governments should settle
this lawsuit ASAP and let Microsoft go back to doing what they do
best. In my opinion the high-tech industry and the nation in general
would certainly be better off expending their energy, time and money
on new software products rather that dragging out this legal action.
Sincerely,
Scott Gould
MTC-00009948
From: robert sirignano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I support the position that the US courts are wasting much money
in there attempt to prosecute Microsoft. I do not believe it is a
good use of tax payer monies. I further believe it has a negative
effect on the computer software industry, and the US economy. I
think that competition could create, and has the ability to create
alternative software and platforms, and are not bound to Microsoft
in any way. With the growing popularity of other platforms such as
Linux, I believe that this lawsuit is a mute cause.
Please help end this wasteful use of tax monies any way you are
able. Thank you and your staff for your time and concern in reading
my opinion.
I am very happy to have you in DC, and know you are the best
choice Our President could have made.
Sincerely,
Robert Sirignano
MTC-00009949
From: Morgan Philpot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:50pm
Subject: Attorney General Ashcroft,
Attorney General Ashcroft,
The last few years have been most difficult for the technology
industry. The Microsoft lawsuit that the Department of Justice has
been engaged in has cost the industry and has taken millions of
dollars away from matters of urgency that would make this country
better. The original suit was persuaded by Microsoft competitors and
unfortunately they used taxpayer dollars to push their competitive
edge in the market.
The settlement agreed upon by the Department of Justice and the
Microsoft Company is at this time reasonable. It allows the entire
technology industry to move forward and start the innovations
rolling again. Our economy is ready for a new idea. Please accept
the settlement and close the books on the matter.
Sincerely,
Rep. J. Morgan Philpot
Utah House of Representatives
MTC-00009950
From: Brock N. Cordeiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
It's time to stop penalizing commercial success. It's time for
the states to stop persecuting Microsoft. The proposed settlement is
in the public's interest. I support the Bush Administration and
Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the
technology market and the entire national economy.
Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies. The proposed
settlement encourages consumer product-choice, promotes product
innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related computer and software
manufacturers with confidence in marketing their own products. It
also frees up Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust
violations that currently harm the public.
Sincerely,
Brock N. Cordeiro
15 Sagamore Drive
Dartmouth, MA USA
02748-1261
508-979-8930--Phone
508-996-4622--Fax
[email protected]
MTC-00009952
From: Sanford Kenyon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:54pm
Subject: Trials
PLEASE STOP DAMAGING OUR ECONOMY WITH THE LAWSUITS AGAINST
MICROSOFT.
ALSO STOP WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS
SANFORD KENYON
P.O. BOX 212
WEST POINT, CA. 95255
email [email protected]
MTC-00009953
From: David.M.Talmadge@mail. sprint.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support this proposed settlement.
Thank you.
David Talmadge
6708 East 132nd St.
Grandview, MO 64030
[email protected]
MTC-00009954
From: Harland W Cashman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this suit and go forward with real needed
litigation.
Thank you
H.W. Cashman Plainview, NY
MTC-00009955
From: Ed or Anna McNeill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop the anti-trust suit. In today's environment, the customers
have spoken by an overwhelming preference for purchasing Microsoft
products. This is not because Microsoft products are the only ones
available. It is because the customers prefer them.
Harole E. McNeill
201 Calle Del Juego
San Clemente, CA 92672
MTC-00009956
From: Connie D. Husley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to advise that I support the Bush Administration and
Microsoft in the settlement of this lawsuit.
Let me add a few of my own thoughts and comments: A former
partner of mine walked out on our business a year and a half ago and
started her own business.
She proceeded to call and send letters to our clients leading
many of them to believe that she would be ``taking over'' their
cases when no such agreement had been made. She continuously smears
our reputations with clients as she has done to her previous
employers in the past. We lost more than 1/2 of our client base to
these unethical actions. She attempted (and is still doing so) to
take all of them in any way she could. Fortunately, my reputation in
the field is good enough and her slander is not with the other 1/2.
This, along with many other actions she practiced and continues to
practice, is a violation of anti-trust laws; not what Microsoft has
done.
I am tired of the government constantly attempting to divert the
money and success that honest, hardworking individuals have obtained
to 'provide to the less fortunate' individuals. I do not make much
money; in fact, I am a single parent of two teenagers and make less
than $50,000 a year. There have been times that I have made $15,000
a year and I have never felt that the so called rich people owe me
something. Because of my intent to provide for myself and my family,
I have done whatever I could to make sure my success was a priority.
I have admired the ambition of people such as Bill Gates who have
built themselves an ``empire'' on their own intelligence and
abilities. It is ironic to me that the ones that feel that the
``poor'' people need to get more of the government's (American's)
money than the ones that have actually paid the taxes into the
government are Hollywood elite who make millions of
[[Page 25234]]
dollars a year and wouldn't give a penny up without plenty of media
coverage to make sure they become noted for their alleged wonderful
contributions. If the ``poor'' people would quit laying on the legs
of honest, hardworking Americans, they may be able to actually make
it on their own. President Bush's tax cut and the refunds was the
best thing in the world and I think if the majority of it went to
the ``richest of the rich'', then they were deserving of it since
they were the main contributors. While I don't agree with salaries
paid to CEO's, etc. that are non-owners of businesses, I cannot
agree with penalizing them because they may have been diligent
enough to get where they are.
I could continue with my point of view but feel that this should
get my point across in regard to the Microsoft case.
Thank you for your consideration of my interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Connie D. Husley
6911 Rosebank Dr.
Metairie, LA 70003
504-456-0905
MTC-00009957
From: mail.televar.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Let this matter get settled and stop the hold up on new products
Microsoft has been penalized far too long for being too good at what
they are good at doing. This is supposed to be a free market
country. If the other manufactures can't swim with the big fish too
BAD.
Richard H. Baumann
MTC-00009958
From: Francis Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I have tried to follow the Microsoft case as much as possible
and I am appalled with the DoJ for settling that easily. the law
states that Microsoft broke the law, why does the punishment not fit
the crime. As an individual on the street I start drawing my own
conclusions. Did Microsoft pay off somebody etc? When IBM was found
guilty of monopoly, they were dealt with accordingly and they could
not profit from their business.
When Southwestern Bell (I forget what it was called) was a
monopoly, it was dealt with too Why is the DoJ afraid of dealing
with Microsoft. Wrong is wrong.
The proposed settlement is an insult to the ``poor under
privileged schools.'' I could understand if Microsoft offered to
make all these schools top of the art with new technology/hardware
etc. But to offer outdated hardware/software!, all they are doing is
using the schools as trash cans, because they have nowhere to put
their junk. ``give it to them under privileged schools, they should
be grateful'', and the worst part the DoJ accepted this. This is the
United States for pete's sake. we are supposed to offer justice for
all. Stop this atrocious settlement.
I use Windows software on my pc and I appreciate the software,
it is good and to most extent reliable and easy to use (if you know
what you are doing). But I do not think that should get Microsoft
special favors/treatment. DoJ act like a department of Justice and
not like somebody's lacky.
You read almost everyday that Microsoft is doing something bad
here or there. This will continue until someone says ``The Buck
Stops Here Microsoft, enough is enough''. A good example is a simple
poll. They tried to rig a poll so that it looks like people want
Microsoft, having people voting multiple times, how low can a
company go to wipe out competition. Microsft cannot stand that
people like something else other than Microsoft, they are now like
dictator governments ``Its our way or noones''.
DoJ clean up your act and do the right thing.
THANK YOU
FRANCIS
MTC-00009959
From: evilpaul13
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee,
I have been following the Microsoft case reasonably closely.
Based on what I've read from the testimony before the committee, I
do not believe that the proposed punishment is fitting or effective.
Because Microsoft has acted unfairly against competition, and price
gouged consumers I believe the proposed remedy should reciprocate.
Microsoft's competition should receive a indirect boon, and
consumers should be repaid in some way.
So, I propose that Microsoft pay 20 billion back to consumers
split two ways. First, 8 billion should be put into Social Security.
Many of the consumers Microsoft gouged will one day hope to collect
SS, and every little bit helps. 12 billion should be put into
education and schools. I propose that it be distributed by state
according to population. In the individual states, 80% of the money
should be given to the bottom 33% of schools and 20% to the 17%
above the bottom third. With the condition, that not a penny of that
money be spent on Microsoft products.
This is how Microsoft will compensate its competitor's for its
unfair business practices. By not using Microsoft products, schools
will use its competitors. I attended public schools, and based on my
experience with their systems, there is little to nothing that is
done on their computers that a competing product does not do just as
well as its more expenisve Microsoft version.
Linux is a operating system that could easily replace Windows on
school servers. And on desktops too. Contrary to what Microsoft
might have you believe there is no shortage of quality software
available FREE OF CHARGE. Two of the most popular and easy to use
are Redhat Linux (their CEO testified if I recall correctly) and
Mandrake Linux. Mandrake is as easy to install as Windows 98.
Sun Microsystem's Star Office is a FREE full featured office
software suite, with nearly identical menus and identical
functionality to Microsoft Office. Netscape has a web browser that
works as well as Internet Explorer. All Linux distributions have
several to choose from including Mozilla (what Netscape is based
on), the KDE project's Konqueror, and Galeon. All three are high
performance and stable web browsers.
There is a graphics manipulation and creation program called
``The Gimp'' also available free of charge with most Linux
distributions. Adobe Software also offers world class graphics
software used by professionals everyday. This is also a place where
schools could consider Apple iMacs which are known for their
strength in graphics.
It is very important to remember that while Microsoft's
proponents will claim that while free Linux has a higher total cost
of ownership, this is simply a falsehood. Schools will need a
``computer guy'' no matter what type of systems they run.
Additionally, ``Windows was built for the Internet'' while UNIX-like
operating systems such as Linux ``Built the Internet.'' So,
networking is very much a part of Linux systems and they are more
easily (and without expensive addons) administered to remotely.
A default installation of Linux is also far more secure than a
default installation of Windows. Having used Windows in school, I
can attest to the amount of downtime computers had caused by their
frequent infection by Windows viruses and by malicious hacker-
wannabes. Under Linux, a person logged on cannot delete critical
files which would crash the computer or change settings that would
crash the computer. Windows viruses like Code Red, Sircam, Nimda,
and every other of the dozens of Windows viruses that make the
headlines every year simply will not work on Linux.
I hope the committee will read and consider my proposal, as I
whole heartedly believe it will be a more effective punishment for
past transgressions, and send the message that future abuse will not
be tolerated.
Sincerely,
Paul Dougherty IV
Resident of Media, Pennsylvania
Computer Science Student
MTC-00009960
From: kherzog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Message Attorney General Ashcroft:
Please consider the fact that Microsoft has become successful
because it has developed and marketed the software most users of
computers want to and are willing to buy. Those who are attacking
Microsoft can only be described as losers. They can't compete in the
game so they want to change the rules.
Please use your authority stop the penalization of success and
restore the competitive software market.
That is the American way to do business.
Keith Herzog
[email protected]
[[Page 25235]]
MTC-00009961
From: Phil Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft
Why does the Government punish success? Look at Ma Bell and see
the chaos the government produced,higher rates for all.(not to
mention the competitive resistant Post office)
MTC-00009962
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General Ashcroft Department of Justice Dear Sir: We
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to
settle this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Donald Johnson
2154 East Dallas Drive Terre Haute, Indiana 47802-5133
MTC-00009963
From: BJ Trahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Please settle this now. This is hurting the ultimate people it
was suppose to help. It is hurting the economy and wasting a lot of
time and money.
Mr. B. J. Trahan
324 Orgeron Drive
Lafayette, La. 70506-6846
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00009964
From: Susan Whitaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAW SUITE OVERALL
I have no idea what Clinton's motivation was in initiating a law
suit against Microsoft and really do not care. But, you judges,
government lawyers, and other bureaucrats involved should be ashamed
of yourselves! Gates was not born with a silver spoon and
privileged, he had an idea and kept after it until today we see
Microsoft. It is too bad that others either cannot or will not spend
the time to do what Gates did, some ``real'' competition would be
okay too. But, Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are hundreds of
domestic and foreign companies competing but none who apparently
want to take the time, and borrow or spend the money to do what
Microsoft has done.
Shame on the lot of you!! Gates actually did what people,
Americans are told, who have the ingenuity and drive can do in this
Country. But apparently there is a P.S. at the bottom of the
American dream--and that is, if you achieve it and are successful
without the Government, you will be punished by that Government.
Shame on the lot of you!!!
This NEVER should have happened and there should be NO judgment.
The government sues a private individual, with taxpayers money using
a judge and court full of government people, and guess what--the
government won. Isn't that a surprise.
This entire matter is disgusting and so are those involved,
beginning with the most immoral and treacherous president this
Country has ever had. I suppose this will be deleted and never see
the light of day but unlike the antitrust suit against Southwestern
Bell a number of years ago when there simply were no competitors at
all, this law suit was not about antitrust, this was about something
else, something far more scary--Federal Government power.
Thank you for your time.
Susan Whitaker
Kansas City MO
MTC-00009965
From: Wendy Bolding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wendy Bolding
258 Freeport Road
North East, PA 16428
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
It has come to my attention that there may be further delays in
the recent settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department.
I really don't think this is necessary. Considering the fact that
Microsoft has gone above and beyond the call of duty to help our IT
sector move forward, it is ridiculous to further delay the process.
It is beyond me as to why some parties feel they need to delay
this matter any further. Not only has Microsoft has agreed to
reconfigure marketing and licensing agreements, but has agreed to
design future versions of Windows to promote installation of non-
Microsoft software. Beyond this, they have agreed to be reviewed by
a committee that will make sure that they follow procedure. All of
this was done in the interest of our entire technology industry.
Microsoft, as well as most other IT companies, wants to move forward
and get back to business.
The settlement is very fair and should be finalized as soon as
possible. Microsoft's opponents should not be allowed to derail it;
it is my sincere hope that you will not do anything to hang it up.
Sincerely,
Wendy Bolding
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00009966
From: Frank Haman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:31pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Stop penalizing US businesses for doing their job.Stop the
prosecution of MICROSOFT and get on with more important things that
the government should care about, like the economy !!
Sincerely,
Frank Haman, a concerned citizen.
MTC-00009967
From: Chuck Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is time to let the free market do what it does best. Produce
men like Bill Gates. Stop tyranny now, reward the businessmen who
can help our economy. Stop the lawyers from taking what isn't
theirs. Tort reform is needed.
Gen Hall
Orinda, CA
MTC-00009968
From: Don Babo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:32pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
I urge you, the DOJ to settle and be done the this Microsoft
letigation case. It has been going on for fours years now and two
presidents. I think the government and the DOJ has more inportant
things to do. With the way things are in the world today I think
your resources could be put to better use for the american peapole.
Do not let a minorioty stand in the way of what the majoity wants.
Put the case to rest!
MTC-00009969
From: Bazil Ghani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let the market forces decide the fate of Microsoft and
the competitors. I assure you, us consumers don't purchase software
because Microsoft places it in front of our face. We make educated
decisions. If Sun and the rest of the industry want to use the
government to sell their software, it is indeed a sad situation for
them. I don't think we as consumers are harmed with Microsoft. The
best case one can make is that Microsoft is guilty of annoying some
consumers. But their competitors are often far more annoying.
(example: Real Networks, Netscape, AOL, and Sun's Office)
I hope you'll decide to settle and let the us, the consumers
decide whether we'll let Microsoft tell us what software to use.
Regards,
Bazil Ghani
Vice President of Business Development
Italia Bella Inc.
8647 Hayden Place.
Culver City, CA 90232
310 204 0200
MTC-00009971
From: Becky Bardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
I would like to let the Federal District Court know that I
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to
settle this lawsuit. I believe that the proposed settlement is in
the public's interest. Please do not continue this litigation any
longer.
Sincerely,
Rebekah Bardon
3926 S. 2500 E.
Vernal, UT 84078
MTC-00009972
From: Joshua Barney
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25236]]
Date: 1/10/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft needs competition!
I felt compelled to write in because of the current state and
possible future of the internet and computing in general.
If Microsoft continues to have its way, no data on the internet
will be safe, and our economy will likewise suffer. Microsoft's
policy of ``If it's broke, why fix it?'' is startling to say the
least, but understandable when they are in such a position of power.
They don't have to worry so much about people fleeing from their
services. For those that would wish to flee, there are licensing
restrictions or bosses that are entirely focused on using nothing
but Microsoft products to help keep them in the fold.
Microsoft thinks they are helping companies by making the
computing world a Microsoft one. They are wrong. Truth is they're
hurting companies by taking such a lax stance on security and
quality. When there's no competition around there is no reason to
improve.
They aren't quite king of the server arena yet, but even now
they act like they own that market. They do not use the quality of
technology to coerce companies into using their products, but very
carefully orchestrated marketing and trickery. They mislead
consumers into thinking that Windows is the fastest, most reliable
and most secure OS. They try to make consumers think that
``everybody else is doing it'', the most recent evidence being a
rigged ZDNet poll asking whether consumers would use Microsoft's
.NET or Java-based web services.
While I do acknowledge that Microsoft has made some marginal
strides in useablility and stability in their operating systems,
their security is still bar-none the worst in the industry.
They don't care about other companies. They only care about
themselves. Now in today's cutthroat business world that doesn't
mean much, and I wouldn't expect anything less from a capitalistic
society, but you would think that a company as ubiquitous as
Microsoft would at least take pride in its work, and at least
consider other's problems of stability and security into account. If
those servers aren't running, from any reason from instability to
security breaches, companies are losing a very large amount of
money. I'm no economy expert but I can only assume that does hurt
the economy visibly. The current state of our economy isn't too
great either, so do we really need any additional danger to it by
poorly-engineered software?
Microsoft /needs/ competition in order to get better. Not only
to help companies and to help Microsoft, but to help the end user as
well. So far I have been focusing on the server market, but the home
user market is also affected by these decisions. Microsoft leaves
open very serious security holes in even its software meant for home
users (oddly enough, they call some of these holes ``features'').
When using a Microsoft OS at home, you can never be completely sure
that your data is completely safe.
So there needs to be competition in the home desktop user
market, as well. A variety of operating systems can easly take over
what average Joe User wants to do at home, but Microsoft, intent on
securing its perch, has made certain that support for the latest
hardware and software is a Windows-only deal. This is the ONLY
reason I see that operating systems like BeOS and Linux aren't more
prevalent in the user's home.
If support was there from hardware and software vendors, even an
operating system as ``difficult'' to use as Linux would be a piece
of cake to use, and in fact to a large degree it already is easy to
use thanks to the huge strides and hard work of millions of
collaborating programmers across the globe, and companies that have
decided to be sympathetic to those that want something other than
Windows. Hell, I'm just an animator. I have no interest in my
computer beyond getting the best hardware and the best software, and
in getting the job done. Linux does this for me nearly flawlessly. I
can do almost everything a home Windows user can do, save being able
to play a few games and use some hardware. I've based my entire
studio under Linux, using freely available software to craft artwork
and animation.
Despite this I still have to be careful about what hardware I
get because Linux support is still a bit spotty. I shouldn't have to
worry about that as a home user, though. Companies, likewise,
shoudln't have to worry about having Microsoft breathing down their
necks when they want to support an alternative platform.
I think I've said enough for now, and I hope my words, along
with the words of everyone else, are heard. Swifter and stricter
action must be taken against Microsoft to ensure that tomorrow's
world will be a good one for everybody. Even Microsoft.
Joshua Barney
Founder and Lead Animator, Arctic Winds Animation
``You can't have bread and loaf.''
MTC-00009973
From: Randy (038) Shirlee Wadlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
Please forward my comments to the Federal Judge in the Microsoft
antitrust matter. I am IN FAVOR of the settlement agreement that has
been reached among Microsoft, the D.O.J., and the 18 states on the
suit.
(1) I, for one, am just the ordinary consumer who is, as I see
it, going to pay double for this litigation. My belief is that it is
our tax money funding the litigation, and afterwords my money that
pays for the additional software costs as brought about by any
settlement reached. (i.e. tobacco though I'm a non-smoker)
Therefore, any further litigation would just be a detriment to me,
and millions like me, as the so called ``benefits'' are negligible
from my perspective.
(2) I am not a computer ``guru'' and I put the Microsoft program
packaging in the same category as buying a car. I don't want to
purchase a basic car and then have to go somewhere else to purchase
all the options I want. Not only would that be too time consuming,
but it would also be cost prohibitive.
Thank you for the oportunity to express my views in this matter.
Sincerely,
Randy L. Wadlow
5318 Glenwood Ln.
Lakeside, Arizona 85929-5135
928-532-0470
MTC-00009974
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I support the speedy settlement of this case. Our tax money can
be spent more wisely than continuing this lawsuit.
MTC-00009975
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Hesse:
We are concerned about the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
We feel that they will eventually become such a monopoly that we
will have NO choices when we buy software.
Please stop this company from limiting our choices by taking a
strong position against them.
Sincerely,
Gerald & Judith Arnold
418 Aiken Road
Shelbyville, KY 40065
MTC-00009976
From: Mark Virkler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attorney General Ashcroft
Please bring to an end the governments attack against Microsoft.
Blessings,
Mark Virkler
President of Christian Leadership University
1-800-466-6961 or [email protected] www.cluonline.com
MTC-00009977
From: Ronald Tognetti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Dear Sir,
I'm writing you a quick note to support you and the Bush
Administration as it seeks to end the litigation against Microsoft.
Pursuing this action any further will further justify a bad
precedent--the notion that the Federal government can enclose itself
in the pursuit of 'Consumer Protection' when in fact it yields the
opposite effect--creating uncertainty for businesses which produce
goods in a competitive environment, which itself yields stagnation,
fewer competitors and less innovation. Microsoft appears to have
acknowledged wrong doing, and if the penalties outlined in the
settlement are enforced to the letter, that will be a fair outcome.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment directly to you, and
wish you well in the pursuit of truer justice for consumers.
[[Page 25237]]
Sincerely,
R. Tognetti
Littelton, CO
MTC-00009978
From: Moore, Kevin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
As a technology professional I use all types of computer
software daily. I support the tempting to make gain Bush
Administration and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
I feel that further prosecution is based solely on competitors or
politicians attempting to gain points or a tax payer funded
advantage.
I hope that this settlement goes further in stopping States from
wasting taxpayer money on frivolous suits.
Kevin Moore
MTC-00009979
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsaoft Settlement
PLEASE; Let's settle this matter now and get on with other
important matters! Thanking you in advance,
Allie Simpson
MTC-00009980
From: Mike Donovan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mr. Ashcroft, It is time to move toward as much financial
stability as possible. End the Microsoft litigation. Perhaps
Microsoft took advantage of their proprietary system by providing
the users with more value for their money. So, what else is new. If
IBM hadn't foolishly allowed Microsoft to keep the rights to DOS it
would be IBM who would be under the gun. If Apple had grown to #1
with their proprietary system, they would be under fire. It has
already cost Microsoft, stockholders, related industries and the
American people more that is deserved.
Mike Donovan,
11038 N. River Lane,
Cornell, MI. 49818
MTC-00009981
From: John Zehnder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear AG John Ashcroft,
This fiasco of a suit against Microsoft initiated by the Clinton
Justice Department has had a very detrimental effect on the high
tech portion of our economy. ! urge you to cease and desist any and
all actions against Microsoft and use the taxpayers' money to pursue
the actual criminals in our country.
Sincerely,
John Zehnder
--John Zehnder
[email protected]
MTC-00009982
From: EVAN LEE
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/10/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ Anti-Trust Division:
I am deeply troubled by the recent DOJ decision to settle the
anti-trust case against Microsoft. Guilty or not, Microsoft is the
most dominating presence in the operating system and the software
market today. For years they have bought out or pushed out
competition not by superioriety of the software, but by money and
lawyers. Microsoft does not promote fair competetion, their goal
seem to be eliminate all competetion. Every new technology or
company comes up with new and cheaper ways that benefits customers
have been targed by Microsoft as enemies. I do not believe behaviors
such as this will be curbed by this settlement, if anything else
this gives Microsoft more confidence to destroy their competitors,
because what's the worst that will happen? a slap on the hand to
microsoft.
what will this settlment accomplish? by making microsoft
providing computers to poor schools in the country? How will this
punish microsoft? All they have to do is buy in mass quantity
refurbished computers which manufactures are gladly to get rid of.
The software of course will be windows. This will not punish
microsoft, instead it helps them breaking in to previously Mac
dominated education market share. This settlement is not punishing
Microsoft, it is helping them gaining publicity and market share.
It is amazing to me that this cased started hard and heavy in
the late 90s when microsoft had no presence in washington. but it
ended with less of a whimper after microsoft dumped millions if not
billions of dollars in to washington's political arena. I believe
this is the wrong decision by the DOJ to settle with Microsoft, and
their monopoly will only get worse. . . I fear the day that
Microsoft conquers all.
Evan Lee
Disturbed Computer User
MTC-00009983
From: Alfred M Selgas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Affect on Americans with Disability
Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 601 D
Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Madam,
Richard Blumenthal replied today to correspondence which I
recently sent to him:
``Dear Mr. Selgas:
Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning
the Microsoft antitrust case.''
``You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002.
Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General''
Thus, I am providing you with opinions that may help you obtain
an equitable settlement for all Americans, especially those who are
not always included.
My email to Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, follows:
Subject: Accessibility and Unbundled Version of Windows
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 18:38:03 -0500
From: Alfred M Selgas [email protected]>
To: [email protected] CC: [email protected],
[email protected]
Dear Sir:
I have just read the below referenced article in today's
NYTimes:
``States Ask Judge for Unbundled Version of Windows
By REUTERS Copyright 2001 Reuters Ltd December 7, 2001''
In your efforts to secure an open marketplace, please consider
the circumstances of Americans with Disabilities in particular
Accessibility has varied definitions:
1: providing access
2 a: capable of being reached ; also : being within reach b :
easy to speak or deal with
3: capable of being influenced : OPEN
4: capable of being used or seen : AVAILABLE
5: capable of being understood or appreciated
All of these definitions are pertinent to the able bodied and
even more so to those of us who need all of the capabilities of
personal computing, internet, world wide web, e-mail and more to not
just exist but to function effectively in the current and evolving
world. These capabilities are not truly accessible if we are locked
into one company's version of accessibility.
I see Microsoft embracing ``accessibility'' only if one uses
their version. The concept of Open Systems is not that of one
company's version of the appropriate pieces of computer resources
and their architecture. It is the concept of all widely available
commercial computer resources being able to be selected and used as
required by the consumer in an architecture of his or her choosing.
This is especially true to provide equitable treatment of those with
disability.
I applaud your efforts; and I appreciate your attention.
Yours truly,
Alfred M. Selgas
4606 Herend Place
Fairfax, VA 22032-1714
703-425-1519
[email protected]
Please satisfy these concerns in any federal settlement with
Microsoft.
Thank you for your efforts and attention.
Yours truly,
Alfred M. Selgas
4606 Herend Place
Fairfax, VA 22032-1714
703-425-1519
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009984
From: RLB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:28pm
Subject: the trial
It would be in the public interest to keep the proceedings open
to the public, including the pre-hearing questioning of witnesses.
[[Page 25238]]
Richard L. Berger
1223 Amherst Ave.,
Los Angeles 90025
MTC-00009985
From: Spike Forbes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement proposal
Dear Sirs: The proposed remedies in the settlement of your
antitrust suit against Microsoft are an absolute and complete
travesty. You are totally denying justice to the millions upon
millions of citizens and computer users you supposedly represent.
Microsoft has continually, repeatedly and flagrantly used improper
and illegal techniques not only to maintain its monopoly status but
far more seriously, to deny computer users access to far better
technologies. It has created an environment where no competitor has
had even a remote chance of successfully competing in the
marketplace, independent of both quality issues and pricing issues.
Your settlement would effectively allow Microsoft to continue its
abhorrent practices without material modification.
One can go back to significant antitrust cases in the past, with
IBM and AT & T recently coming immediately to mind. Before them,
most monopolistic practices were of the price-fixing variety. But no
company in the U.S. of the last sixty years has ever operated to
such material detriment of the public interest as Microsoft. Sadly,
most consumers are not even aware of what they have lost out on
because few have seriously investigated (or, thanks to Microsoft,
even been able to investigate) alternatives.
IBM was predatory in its pricing and packaging, and maintained
its monopoly for years because of the service and comfort it
offered. With all its flaws, it remains to this day a research-
oriented company which has brought to the market incredible
innovation. The marketplace eventually removed it from monopoly
status, in about the same time frame as the antitrust case, if
continued, would have done. While IBM's practices were contemptible
and slowed the introduction of such things as personal computers for
close to a decade, it never operated to force an environment where
competitors simply could not survive (as Microsoft has overtly and
illegally done).
At & T was never predatory in either its pricing or its
packaging, probably because it always operated as a monopoly with
government blessing, for the most part in quite a ``benevolent''
manner. The break-up probably served to actually hurt most customers
for quite a long time since competition was not created in the one
market that matters most to most consumers, local telephone service.
Certain of the ``Baby Bells'' (Qwest is the one I am most familiar
with) have been quite successful in maintaining their monopoly
status, to the on-going detriment of consumers. Eventually, after
many years of absolute turmoil in the long-distance market,
consumers have clearly realized the benefits of a competitive
market. The greatest loss to consumers has probably been from the
effective demise of what was by far the highest quality research
branch in the world, Bell Labs.
Microsoft has done no research of its own; it has created no
quality products; it is not an innovator under any definition of the
word; and it has implemented standards which have kept computers
error-prone and horrendous to use for at least a dozen years longer
than would have happened absent its monopoly. And it has done all of
this, not by technology or by packaging or by pricing but by the
totally abusive power of controlling the marketplace through illegal
agreements, intimidation and outright fraud. Yes, it has also taken
advantage of its established monopoly to apply predatory pricing and
packaging, but that is not the damage it has done to the industry
and to the consumer.
It is true that eventually the marketplace will remove Microsoft
from its perch, but the DOJ would do consumers a huge favor, and
would speed up the process by perhaps ten years, if it would adopt
effective measures making Microsoft cease and desist. Placing
billions of dollars in penalties on the company for a failure to
amend its ways, not to mention breaking it into at least three
pieces, is the only conceivable way to give any justice for the
billions of dollars in both profit and in lost opportunities that it
has bilked from consumers over the years. It is far too late to
salvage the lost years, but positive change can still happen at a
far greater rate than it otherwise will.
I have been one of the few who has insisted on using some of the
alternative products which have existed over the last twenty years,
just as, back in the 1970's I was one who insisted on using some of
the alternatives to IBM products. I have also continually used
Microsoft products, just as I also continually used IBM products at
that time. So I feel very qualified to speak to the quality and the
usability of a wide variety of alternatives. Microsoft has done
computer users absolutely no favors, ever since the very early days
of its operating system control. It has held the entire computer
industry hostage for far too long.
It is not just the browser, but rather a whole range of
practices; I could have gone through software product after product
to show specifically how Microsoft implemented changes both to make
that product no longer work (if it was clearly a better product) and
to make it impossible for the developers of the product to keep up.
In a nutshell, there are two primary practices (both on-going as far
as I can tell): as the designer of the operating system, it provided
the rules to others, while its own developers have been continually
allowed to use capabilities known only to itself. And second, if its
own products violated its own rules (which they frequently did and
still do), it either changed the rules for the future or, more
likely, it created new de facto standards outside the rules which
other developers would have to modify their own products to meet.
The headaches created by these two practices have meant two things:
if a developer, sell your product to Microsoft if it is any good;
you won't be able to issue new releases fast enough to keep up, and
they'll actually target you if you really have a quality product
that competes with one of their own. If a consumer, buy Microsoft
because they're the only ones who can keep their products working on
their operating systems (in other words, even though another's
product followed all the rules, if it worked anything less than
perfectly, Microsoft uniformly said that the fault lay in the
product; in fact, the fault most often lay in either the operating
system itself or in the public version of what Microsoft said the
operating system rules were).
Please do us all a favor, in a case you have already won, by
coming up with truly rational and effective remedies, not the
absurdities you are currently proposing.
Waldo E. Forbes
37 Beckton Drive
Sheridan, WY 82801
307-674-6095
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00009986
From: David Carson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Firstly, I do not believe that Microsoft would have ever lost if
the trial had been conducted by a truly impartial judge or by a
jury. However, given what the current state of the case is, I
believe that the proposed settlement by Microsoft and the DOJ is
acceptable. Of course, I think that the states that have decided to
go out on their own case is absolute folly and they should be
strongly encouraged by the DOJ to drop their suits and let Microsoft
get on with competing in the markets in which they choose to
participate.
I know that Clinton's pursuit of Microsoft has caused me great
personal losses in my Microsoft and related investments for which I
will never forgive him. This stalling economy needs closure to this
ridiculous case and let the high-tech sector get on with the
business of making products that satisfy consumer and business
needs. It's time for everyone to move on from the nightmare of the
Clinton Administration which includes the pathetic pursuit of one of
America's truly great enterprises (Microsoft).
Thanks very much for taking the time to consider input from
public.
David Carson (former Microsoft employee and current shareholder)
16318 NE 50th Way
Redmond, Washington
425-869-2279
MTC-00009987
From: Jean Pickett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft
I have followed this suit over the years and am thoroughly
disappointed that the DOJ could take its precious time and the
taxpayers' money to continue this farse. We live in a land of
freedom, freedom to create and to innovate. Of course, some who
haven't taken the time or made the effort could become jealous of a
terrific product. How can you `limit' a product because a competitor
is jealous of it? It seems unconstitutional at best! The consumer
will suffer, not Microsoft or its jealous competitors. Where do you
think the money comes from to pay the
[[Page 25239]]
claim? From the consumers! Who do you think suffers from the less
than optimum software? The consumers! It's amazing to me that a
company can be held accountable because they are presenting a
product to the public. Nobody forces the consumer to make the
purchase! So why make the rest of us suffer because a few want to
disrupt and destroy? And, in the name of justice? Why don't you
people spend your time with the electric monopolies, or the oil
monopolies, or the American Medical Association monopolies. These
people legally force their products on the innocent! And, when have
they been taken into question for it? Leave Microsoft alone so the
people who choose to purchase its products can have the best
combination possible without all of the added inconveniences you
people claim to provide as `benefits'.
MTC-00009988
From: DON BLASINGAME
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to stop this farce of a lawsuit that ostensibly was
``in the best interest of the public'', when I fact it was driven by
the best interest of Microsoft competitors. Stop the harassment, let
Bill Gates get on with producing the worlds best computer operating
system. He produced a better mouse trap, stop standing in the way of
the pathway to his door.
Don Blasingame
Tyler, Texas
[email protected]
MTC-00009989
From: KT/MT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:39pm
Subject: To all at the Justice Department
To all at the Justice Department
Leave Microsoft alone--the company has done so much for the
world with their computer programs, creating jobs and putting people
to work and keeping them employed, it is just a shame what the
Clinton era has done with it's abuse of the law, the things this
past administration has done is appalling --and the two biggest
offenders of the law are still out running loose and now charging
the American people for the rent of their house that houses the
secret service, that is guarding them, and isn't it ironic it just
happens to be the mortgage payment for their Million dollar home
they live in--both of the Clintons should be ashamed of there past
and some day they will finally get what they deserve, some jail
time.
Thank you for your time,
Keith Tuma
Brainerd Mn. 56401
MTC-00009990
From: dawn grey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I find it hypocritical to allow one world banking takeovers by
the bank, electric, phone and water and then give microsoft trouble
for helping the people out. Microsoft should never have been taken
to court in the first place so I do not think they should suffer in
any way. Stop the other distructive take overs of individuals and
business by government mandates etc. Leave Microsoft alone!!!!!
Diana Rey
in care of
Dawn Grey' s email address of [email protected]
MTC-00009991
From: Alexandre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I don't know how helpful this E-mail will be but I wanted to be
sure that you knew an open source company has proposed to offer free
software (much like windows and office, but from another company)
for the hardware (the computers) Microsoft would provide to the
poorer schools of the country. That means that Microsoft will really
help, and won't extend its monopoly by supplying its own software to
the schools it wants to help. Also, if another company takes care of
the software, maybe Microsoft can offer more Hardware. The company
is Red Hat. You can get their press release here and maybe write to
them for more info.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744--1.html
I feel its wrong for a company that was found guilty of abusing
of its monopoly to extend its monopoly by providing old, free
computers and its own software to kids who are eager to learn. They
unhonestly steal marketplaces for other companies, namely Apple,
their biggest competitor in the education market, who is leader in
that market, and eventually trying to be paid by saying that in 5
years their contract will be over and the schools will have to pay
for upgrades.
Open source software is completely free, and just as useful and
easy to use. It is as easy for children to learn a computer system
not used as wide as windows because they haven't yet had contact
with windows, and it is better for them to get a wide grasp at what
computers are, and not just the Microsoft point of view.
If Red Hat doesn't suit the education market, you should
consider other alternatives, like Linux, Apple, and other
competitors. Microsoft should just provide money and hardware, not
their software. --
I was advised by Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General to send
you this E-mail I had sent to him earlier.
Thank you.
Alexandre Ackermans
[email protected]
MTC-00009992
From: David Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:48pm
Subject: Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
I want to first thank you most sincerely for bringing Christian
dignity and honor to your held post for you have thus brought
blessing to this nation. I also wish to support your efforts to end
the Microsoft attack. Clinton's elitist government set out hell bent
to destroy American private, free enterprise and did so in one
account by attacking Microsoft. His attack resulted in the collapse
of the stock market causing me to loose all my retirement and
investment savings, complete 100% loss. I know many others who lost
severely as well. It is high time to stop elitist government, anti-
American government policies and actions and to return America to
free enterprise, return soverienty to states and Constitutional
rights to United States citizens. End the Microsoft fiasco now!
Respectfully,
Dr. David C. Fisher, OD, MPH
12921 Dale Street, #82
Garden Grove, CA. 92841
MTC-00009993
From: Virginia Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of moving ahead with the proposed settlement as
outlined by the Bush Administration. Enough is enough!
Virginia R. Jensen
1111 W. Placita Alvina
Green Valley, AZ. 85614
MTC-00009994
From: Dr. David A. Zatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft has been found to have broken the law. If I broke that
many laws, I'd be penalized for it, not politely requested to stop
breaking laws.
What amazes me is how flagrantly Microsoft is still abusing
their monopoly status. The latest appears to be a change to their
file system to prevent open source software from interfacing with
Microsoft networks. No surprise if all the punishment is an advisory
board.
I strongly recommend that you attempt to provide some
restitution to the companies damaged by Microsoft's illegal
activities, and try to even out the playing field. I like the idea
of making Windows APIs open. . .of requiring versions of Office--
FULL versions, including Access and VisualBasic--for other leading
platforms, and of having a REAL oversight panel with actual power.
We've already learned that agreements with Microsoft are
meaningless. Once fooled, your fault; twice fooled, my fault. We've
already been fooled once.
MTC-00009995
From: H. Jack (038) Carin Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:50pm
Subject: FREEDOM
DEAR SIRS,
AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, I IMPLORE YOU TO CEASE AND
DESIST, RE: THE ATTACK ON MICROSOFT. PUNISHING SUCCESS IS THE ROAD
SIGN DIRECTING OUR COUNTRY TO RUIN. THE TRANSPARENT MOTIVE OF THIS
LEGAL ATTACK ON MICROSOFT BY GREEDY POLITICIANS AND SLEAZY
COMPETITORS MUST BE DEFEATED, AND FOREVER PUT TO REST IF OUR FREE
SOCIETY IS TO SURVIVE.
IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT THE PRESENT RECESSION COMMENCED WITH
[[Page 25240]]
THE EMERGENCE OF THIS ASSAULT ON MICROSOFT. I URGE YOU TO
IMMEDIATELY TAKE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO REMEDY THIS WRONG
AGAINST THIS VERY IMPORTANT COMPANY.
SINCERELY,
H. JACK MORGAN
MTC-00009996
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001 FROM: Jont Allen
It is critical, in my view, that MS be dealt with severely. They
have broken the law. This is not the right time to ``get soft'' on
them with a lame excuse that it is good for the US economy. What
would be good for the economy is to open up the software industry to
competition. Having a single source for all PC software is like
having a virus. We need competition in the software industry. MS is
a double monopoly. They own the desktop OS AND the applications.
Breaking them up may create two single monopolies, but this
improvement would lead to a much stronger software industry over the
next few years. The US economy would be one of the big winners in
such a breakup.
The above is my personal view. I use Linux software. I have
never had a computer virus. I would like others to see the
advantages of Linux. If MS has its way, Linux will be squashed like
a bug. If MS is broken in two, the applications half will start
producing Office for Linux, in short order. If not, they wont. This
would greatly increase competition in the computer industry. I am
guessing that Judge Jackson saw this clearly, and that is why he
decided they should be broken up. In my view, this is the only
rational solution to a very serious problem.
It is hard to abandon the feeling that the unfamiliar is absurd and
illogical.''
--G.A. Miller, p. 5 of his book `Language and communication'
Jont B. Allen,
973/360-8545 voice,
775/796-9844 (fax),
908/789-9575 (home fax)
Technology Leader Speech Processing Software and Technology
Research
http://www.research.att.com/jba; http://auditorymodels.org/jba
Room E161, AT&T Labs-Research, Shannon Laboratory
180 Park Ave., Florham Park NJ, 07932-0971
CC:Richard Blumenthal
MTC-00009997
From: matt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Attorney General,
As a technician in a large data center outside Washington DC I
have an opportunity to work with a variety of software other than
Microsoft's. Most of the servers we house use some form of Linux or
Apache or FreeBSD or Solaris. Granted, our internal network uses NT
4.0 on the desktop and NT Server 4 on the netserv I do believe that
choice was more a function of the Adminstrator's skillset other than
lack of variety in the marketplace. Point is, I don't see where
Microsoft has ANY monopoly on ANYTHING. Their product just works
pretty good and so far no one has come up with anything better,
competitors' marketing hype aside.
While perhaps out of the mainstream I have 8 versions of
Netscape and InternetExplorer on my home system--EACH--in addition
to a selection of lesser known browsers also. No better way to test
how your webpages load than on the browser in question. I know
browsers. Aint one better than the other at the primary task of
going and getting webpages and since they are all pretty much FREE,
qualify as something less than a commodity. Like dirt.
I am deeply disappointed in the amount of time and money spent
on this suit and hope the judge sees fit to end it very, very soon.
Sincerely,
Matt Tracey
908 Grant Street
Herndon, VA 20170
MTC-00009998
From: Rick Wintheiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial
I am an American citizen living in Europe. It is my opinion, and
that of many others that Microsoft has been given a ``pass'' on the
issue of Monopoly. I cannot comment on legal grounds but as a user,
maker and creator of software I find their current status stifling
in the market. When they ID an area they can simply buy their way in
(see XBOX) or using FUD stop development. It was clearly documented
in the trial, it is clearly documented in emails and letters, it is
clearly documented in the way they behave. Please stand up to them
and make sure that Microsoft is broken up or at least strictly
controlled.
Best Regards,
Rick D. Wintheiser
R. Prof. Mota Pinto, 247 ? 1 Esq
4100-356 Porto Portugal
MTC-00009999
From: Mark Beecroft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:00pm
Subject: Please break Microsoft into competitive parts
Dear sir/madam,
My personal view is that the only way to ensure an effective
climate for competition is to break Microsoft into parts based on
product groups. For years I, as many others, have had to endure poor
quality software simply because no other company has had a real
opportunity to convince the market of the benefits of its
corresponding product(s). A prime example of Microsoft's poor
software is the Windows operating system(s). Not only is this
product more costly and far less stable than many of its
competitors, it is full of security defects which make it an easy
target for hackers. In addition, it is a poorly designed and less
powerful than other operating systems. Every one knows there are
better products (such as Red Hat's Linux) which deserve to be able
to compete on equal terms. Lack of competition is holding back
progress.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Beecroft
MTC-00010000
From: Paul Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:23pm
Subject: U.S. vs. MICROSOFT:
Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I recently received an email concerning U.S. vs. MICROSOFT:, It
was entitled FIVE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND MICROSOFT-- AND WHAT YOU
CAN DO ABOUT IT.
As it urged me to email your office and join in the chorus of
lament against Microsoft, I felt the need to voice an opinion that
is contrary to theirs. I am not saying that I support all of
Microsoft actions and don't think that safe guards should not be in
place, I just question as to what would be appropriate action and
what would simply ``whiny little children'' getting their way!!
The biggest problem the industry faces from Microsoft is also
the the greatest benefit that Microsoft has brought to the software
industry. That is its success in marketing its DOS and now its
Windows platforms. It has made it difficult for other operating
system platforms to get established , yet compete. At the same
success has brought stability to the software marketplace. A
software applictaion development company does not have to worry
about having to write for a multitude of platforms. It can simply
put out a good product for Windows that fills a need, and be assured
that he has a large marketplace. The only risk here is that
Microsoft could develop a competing product, after it has seen the
financial success of the pioneering company, and leverage its
marketing skill, deep pockect, and built in user list to out compete
the pioneer. Yet Microsoft's past experience has shown that what is
usually done is that Microsoft will offer the original company an
offer that they cannot refuse ( i.e., lots of money, a position
within the company, and unlimited ability to develop new products).
Over the past years it seems to me that those that scream the
loudest are those who have made poor business decisions, lost market
share, and would rather blame Microsoft than accept their own
mistakes! Many of the claims within the email that was forwarded to
me are conflicting and to cross purposes. The would be backers of
this document want Microsoft to not compete with them and to include
items that they deem to be useful. How would the industry be if
every one could dictate to every one else what they could and could
not do.
I may not agree with many of Microsoft's business practices (its
bundling agreements for instance) but find that documents such as
[[Page 25241]]
this are why nothing practical gets done. They whine so loudly about
Microsoft being a successful business, that the real problems go on
solved. It sort of like one sibling yelling about his/her sibling so
loudly that they become the problem and the sibling gets ignored.
Considering the inherent problems with Java, it is perhaps best
if it is not included with Windows, after all Microsoft would be
prohibited from fixing it and making it work with windows. Or
perhaps Microsoft should be forced to include Visual Basic, Visual
C++, Tcl, Python, Eiffel, Pike, Perl, Ruby, and the other languages
which are ubiquitous and omnipresent within the development and
internet community as part of the Windows distribution. Perhaps they
should be forced to make ``asp'' and ``.net'' technologies available
for Linux, Sun, and Mac platforms. A collegue wrote and had the
following observations:
My experience with Anti-Trust and Nintendo certainly influence
my feelings about Microsoft's situation. I am sure that Sun or
Oracle, in Microsoft's position would act in exactly the same
manner. I don't want Microsoft to be replaced by Sun or Oracle as
the reigning monopoly. I like Microsoft products and work with
people who absolutely ``hate'' Microsoft.
At our firm, we were always panicked that Microsoft would
eliminate the need for our software by baking it's capabilities into
the operating system. We were very cautious with Microsoft
``evangelists'' and tried to keep low key.
I personally would like to see Microsoft punished more severely
than what seems to be happening but I do not want them destroyed.
The formost concern from software developers is being squashed
by the Microsoft the behemoth. The possibility of Microsoft
replicating a proven proprietary software application or trade
secret and including it as a ``feature'' of it's Windows operating
system or as a Microsoft application. This practice goes on in most
industries and is the formost reason for the demise of small,
inovating manufactures. They develop a proprietary product, which
may be a trade secret but is not patented. A larger more established
company in the field duplicates the product, introduces it into it's
established distribution system, and locks the smaller company out
of the market by its sheer presence. Often distributors will not buy
initially from the smaller firm because they are new and the
distributor is not sure of its stability. after all they don't want
to invest in the development of a market for a new product if they
may not be able to get the prpduct in enough quantity to statisfy
the demand. Yet when the more established company duplicates the
product, they immediately pick it up from them. Denying the
original, innovative company the market, growth profit, and assuring
the failure of the smller company. Sort of a self fulling prophecy.
However, as can be seen by the numerous suggestions as to how
Microsoft should be punished. No one has a clear idea of how to
solve this problem. It does not seem to lie within the ``evil''
nature of microsoft, but to be more a symptom of a ``systemic''
problem with the innovtive process and the established, entrenched,
monied market place. It would appear that the Eighteenth Century
concept of patent does not serve its original intention of
protecting the developer of an idea very well. The original mission
of a patent was to encourge the development of new ideas by
protecting them for a period of time. Now the costs of acquiring and
protecting a patent are so high that many small innovators are
frozen out of the process. And in an area where change is so rapid,
several months to a couple of years, the patent review time which
may be several years negates any effective protection which may be
afforded. By the time a patent is awarded it may already have been
superceded.
The real solution may be legislative in nature, leading to the
adoption of an interim patent that prevents duplication of an
existing product for a short period of time, (2-3 years max). That
would allow the developers of the product sufficient time to
establish the product and be granted a patent, and yet prevent
vulture firms from stealing their ideas. With out this, innovation
will be stiffled, and research will be left to institutions and
large corporations.
The PC and software industry owes its success history and growth
to the fact that at its inception the giants of the computing
industry had no faith in the establishment of a ``Personal
Computer'' industry. Otherwise IBM, Rand, DEC and other Giants would
have owned the industry and it would have been Microsoft crying
about IBM's dominance that you would be reviewing (after all the
first monopoly suit in the computer industry was against IBM).
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this email
and would hope that you would find it informative and useful. This
is a complicated issue. My sympathies go out to you
Sincerely
Paul A. Benson
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010001
From: Kevin Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:05pm
Subject: Settlement?
Dear Sirs,
I am writing this letter today on a Macintosh computer,
manufactured by Apple Computer Inc. I have used the Apple brand for
many years now and have found it to be a superior product to the
compatible PC's on the market today. Having said that, To settle
with Microsoft Corporation would be an injustice. They have ran over
competitors for many years now in an attempt to monopolize the tech
industry. The company was allowed to ``borrow `` GUI technology from
company such as Apple. The steam-roller attitude was formed in those
days and now they are so rich and so powerful that they feel as if
they can do as they please, rules, ethics, or no. These people
should be punished and with the full extent of the law!
Ask companies such as Apple, Netscape, or any other up and
coming company that should cross the path of Mr. Gates Inc. Ask
yourself a few hard questions:
A. How did this company get to be so rich and powerful? Was it
that they produced a superior product? Compared to whom?
B. Why do they control over 95% of the desktop systems in the
U.S.? Ford and GM both build automobiles but neither has ever
enjoyed that type of market share. If GM or Ford couldn't do it how
did Microsoft?
C. Has Microsoft evolved into another AT&T, capable of
domination through high prices and limits on choice?
D.Would the market be served to allow increased competition in
the technology sector?
E. Isn't it somewhat dangerous to allow mega-corporations to
dictate policy to the people?
Do not settle with these people, they would not settle with you.
Respectfully,
Kevin Smith
386 Store Road
Easley, S.C. 29640
864-859-8191
Republican
MTC-00010002
From: Byron Major
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
I support the settlement of the Microsoft Suit. As a person who
works in the computer industry, I would encourage this settlement.
V/R Byron K. Major
MTC-00010003
From: Phoenix Silver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:09pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: Attn: attorney general's Microsoft case
Hello there
My name is Tushar Patel and I'm only 26 years old but I've been
using computers for a very long time and have been exposed to
Microsoft for years and years. I know you're busy so I'll make this
as short as possible.
Licensing Office will NOT help out consumers, this fight that
you've been fight for so hard should not go to waste. Office is a
great product but it won't help out there monopoly. There isn't much
of a market for office products compared to what can be developed on
a platform. As long as Microsoft has control of the platform doesn't
matter what products you license of theirs.
Window's should be the product that is licensed, just as linux
is. This way other companies can integrate any products of there's
into a base OS, and competition will really begin. Microsoft will of
course be allowed royalties and have control over the kernel.
Take a look at the Linux model there is a lot of versions out
there controlled by one guy, ``Linus Torvals'' and each company that
produces a version packages and bundles alot of their own software
and services within their version. If windows was made to follow
this model then companies such as Netscape, Corel would be able to
create their own version of Windows and bundle everything from
Browser's to application servers to office products if they wanted.
This would
[[Page 25242]]
also allow for a more advancement in the windows technology.
All these points are strengthening other companies chance of
competition more so than that of a licensed Office would. PC makers
will also get a choice of who to purchase their OS from and be able
to create deals. This in mine and alot of other consumers is a
solution that helps US OUT. The only remedy that you would have to
do would be to license windows, nothing else would need to be done.
If no other companies want to develop or create an integrated OS at
least the source-code is available to create applications for the
OS.
If you would like a more detailed report or any further
clarification please let me know. I will do anything that you
request. On another up side this could also kick start the tech
industry with alot of start-ups. I love Microsoft and I like some of
there products but as consumers this is the best solution for us and
other companies to compete.
MTC-00010005
From: Randy Keith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Enough already. Get off of Bill Gates' and Microsoft's case.
Let's get back to supply and demand. Quit punishing success. Let the
consumer decide. If a computer company gets too much out of hand
Americans will quit buying. We don't need a Big Brother holding our
hand as we navigate the Internet etc.
I feel like you have punished me as much as Microsoft and Bill
Gates. He has done more to advance the use of computers in the home
than anyone else in the world. It's time to free up Department of
Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm
the public.
Randy Keith
1146 Millers Mill Road
Stockbridge, Georgia 30281
MTC-00010006
From: Susan Findley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit Attorney General John Ashcroft--
I wish to express my support of the settlement of the Microsoft
suit. The settlement offer is fair for competitors, fair for the
American taxpayer, fair for the industry and fair for Microsoft. I
know you are very busy and I appreciate your attention to this
matter.
Spencer Stokes
Stokes Strategies
MTC-00010007
From: Frank Frable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Stop this irrational harassment of Microsoft. Let the free
marketplace reign untethered by government intervention or unfair
marketplace tactics, monopoly etc. Those that pursue the present
course of undermining Microsoft's innovations and aggressive
marketing are not leveling the playing field but merely tilting it
in their favor at the expense of the consumer. Let those that are
the best rise to the top so that this country will maintain its
vaunted position as the industrial power of the world. Let those
that fall behind develop their niche' and their drive to be more
competitive by hard work and innovation. The states that refuse to
settle merely want a cut of the pie to cover their budgetary short
fall. Profit is not a bad word. Neither is success, innovation or
hard work.
Bottom line, Microsoft has not distorted the system. The
consumer has benefited while the naysayers are merely suffering from
self righteous astigmatism.
Frank L. Frable
MTC-00010008
From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Stop punishing company and personal success!!! It is time for
liberals to get over the fact that ALL the money people make is not
for THEM or their POLITICAL PROGRAMS! It belongs to those who earn
it. GO GET THE CRIMINALS IN THE U.S. and leave working people alone!
Jane Pehl
San Antonio, Texas
MTC-00010009
From: auralia cimenski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Settle this case now and let the attorney General get on to more
important matters. Quit picking on a productive company.
MTC-00010010
From: James Keane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
Below please find the text of a letter that I recently sent to
the Att'y Gen of Connecticut. Please know that I am not the only
tech. oriented professional who feels this way. Those of us who have
watched the evolution of the computer for the last two decades have
been alarmed & disgusted by the conduct of this corporation & the
stifling effect it has had on innovation in the computer world.
James Keane, YALE LAPAROSCOPY
MTC-00010010-0001
?? piece of software they produce, they have the nerve to talk
about ``Innovation'' !In a hundred ways daily, despite lawsuits
civil & crimminal, they sabotage rivals, deny acess or produce
obstacles to su
Thank You,
James Keane Yale Laparoscopy
James Keane, YALE LAPAROSCOPY J.
MTC-00010010-0002
MTC-00010011
From: Christopher Joseph Kurecka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a college student and starter of a small computer
consulting business. I have in many ways more knowledge of computers
than most adults, and in all my experience with Microsoft, they have
only done what is needed to sell a product.
Their technical support, though better than some other computer
companies, is still simply horrid. They even charge for technical
support on products that they sell at virtually 100% profit. I know
that they put great amounts of research into some of their technical
developments, but in many cases their alleged efforts don't result
in gains for the consumer.
Microsoft makes bloated, slow software, simply because faster
computers are out and they need a circular system of slowing down
the CPU to demand faster CPUs to keep the market going. The cost of
Microsoft products is far too high--especially when one considers
that Windows itself, along with Office and other applications, are
quite unstable and error-prone. If Windows cost $30, then I might
not care. But they have been steadily raising the price of Windows
over the years, and I believe that if left unchecked they will
continue to raise prices indefinitely.
Microsoft's plan for subscription service for Windows also
frightens me. Their strategy of charging by the month or year for
Windows is outrageous--it will increase the cost of Windows even
more, because you pay for it whether you want to upgrade to new
features or not. It will also lessen the motivation on Microsoft's
part to innovate, once they have a more reliable, consistent money
flow. As things stand today, people could all switch to Linux, and
Microsoft would go bankrupt (not that such a thing would likely
happen, but it's possible). In the subscription service, Microsoft
is ensured a greater sum of money in a more consistent fashion that
could cause me--or anyone else--to pay money even if they don't want
Windows anymore. A good example: I like my computer to be in a dual-
boot setup. I can use Linux for fun, and Windows when I need to use
Office or something that I couldn't otherwise run in Linux. However,
with this plan, I can keep updating Linux for free, and never
upgrade Windows. With the subscription model, I would have to pay
for Windows, even if it is only used as a secondary operating
system.
I think that Microsoft should be forced to produce Office and
their other flagship products for other platforms, such as Linux and
Unix. I also think that they should be forced to restrict their
pricing system, and be forbidden to ever go to a subscription
payment model. Making Windows open source or something to that
effect would definitely be a siginificant boon to the tech industry,
but it would also be a crushing blow to Microsoft that I think at
present their actions do not warrant (though they may at some time
in the future). Thank you very much for your time to read this
message, and for pursuing this antitrust investigation. Microsoft's
anticompetitive behavior is definitely hurting the industry, and
they don't innovate nearly as much as they like to make people think
they do.
Christopher J. Kurecka
[[Page 25243]]
MTC-00010012
From: Bobby Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:30pm
Subject: Fair Justice for Microsoft
Nothing in the agreement with the justice department and
microsoft terminate the illegal monopoly and denies microsoft the
fruits of its statutory violation as is required under the Tunney
Act. Microsoft has done more damage to the computer industry more
over the last 20 years than any company has hurt any market in the
history of the world. Their greed knows know bounds and they will do
anything to maintain the monopoly they got by illegal means. They
lied to the Justice department before which was the reason for the
antitrust case in the first place. Microsoft doesn't have enough
billions of illegal gotten profits, they intend to convert all
they're customers whether the customer likes it or not to a rental
model of software which will only work if microsoft has an illegal
monopoly. This will allow profits skyrocket and allow a reduction in
research and improvement of their software. Microsoft idea of
security is for their customers is to stop information about
security holes in its software to be shared. I'm surprise that they
haven't claim a copyright violation whenever someone finds a
security problem, but given time I think they will claim this.
Microsoft has never been about the customer. They have been about
milking the consumer for all the money from they're now adjudged
illegal monopoly for all they can and maintaining they're monopoly
at all costs.
Bobby E Hill Jr.
MTC-00010013
From: Robert L. Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Attorney General Aschroft,
The proposed Microsoft settlement should be adopted immediately
and the litigation closed.
I am a small business owner. Information systems and Microsoft
software are essential business tools. The integration of the
Microsoft operating system and the suite of applications is a major
factor in the financial health of my business. I cannot afford the
time, expense and business risk of integration of various products
from an array of vendors to run my business. Therefore, in my view
the cessation of the litigation is strongly in the public interest.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Matthews, CEO
Elm Hill Enterprises, Inc.
Elm Hill Box 303
Far Hills, NJ 07931
MTC-00010014
From: Thomas Wills
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 3:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Wills
6925 East Kingston Drive
Tucson, AZ 85710-2214
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
I know you've been swamped with messages telling you to support
the Microsoft settlement. I disagree!
I have to spend thens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy
software, generally by Microsoft that shouldn't have to be spent.
The reasons are:
1) There is no real competition and if there is, Microsoft buys
them out.
2) Because there is no competition, we are forced to buy things
like Microsoft Office at obscene prices ($12000 just to buy 100
Exchange licenses!).
Being a monopoly, Microsoft can exploit its position in the
marketplace, and it does.
Don't settle for this slap on the wrist settlement. Give the
consumer some real relief from the Microsoft monopoly!
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Wills
Information Systems Coordinator
Pima County Wastewater Management
Treatment Division
Tucson, AZ 85743
MTC-00010015
From: Vince Bowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I believe this grossly misdirected persecution/prosecution of
Microsoft is a very large waste of taxpayers money. For each ounce
of good there has been a pound of BAD. It was a bad idea when it was
started and has only become worse each day since. It has caused much
uncertainty in the market and is responsible the loss of many
billions of stockholder value. Had MSFT's competitors been
successful it would have caused us consumers many billions of
dollars and fragmented the desktop operating systems market and cast
the whole software industry into spending, greatly unnecessary
billons of dollars. What an insult to the whole country.
Vincent F. Bowler,
Farmington Hills, MI
[email protected]
MTC-00010016
From: Judy Hurd
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judy Hurd
334 Primrose
Kyle, TX 78640
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Judy Hurd
MTC-00010017
From: Lannie Abernathy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lannie Abernathy
883 Hawthorne St.
Memphis, TN 38107-4510
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lannie Abernathy
MTC-00010018
From: Ulice Macias
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25244]]
Ulice Macias
10112 Brandywine Dr.
Huntsville, AL 35803-1628
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ulice J. Macias
MTC-00010019
From: Debra Habbel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Debra Habbel
8426 E. LaJunta
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Debra Habbel
MTC-00010020
From: John Bixler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Bixler
12700 7thAve.
Victorville, CA 92392-9577
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John Bixler
MTC-00010021
From: Alex Vert
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex Vert
1104 Minneapolis St.
Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783-3124
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alex R. Vert
MTC-00010022
From: Theodore Howard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theodore Howard
25 Coles Ave
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Theodore Howard
[[Page 25245]]
MTC-00010023
From: LJ Bishop
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
LJ Bishop
703 Desnoyer Street
Kaukauna, WI 54130
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Linda Bishop
MTC-00010024
From: Richard Crum
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Crum
15518 Cobre Valley
Houston, TX 77062
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Richard Crum
MTC-00010025
From: Marcia Sparks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marcia Sparks
4593 Main St.
Hemlock, NY 14466
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Marcia Sparks
MTC-00010026
From: David W. Kralik
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David W. Kralik
1920 L. Street, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David W. Kralik
MTC-00010027
From: Edmund Tanner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edmund Tanner
1209 Sims Bridge Rd.
Kittrell, NC 27544-9125
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
[[Page 25246]]
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Edmund Tanner
MTC-00010028
From: Gloria Solomon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gloria Solomon
1910 NE 49th St.
Kansas City, MO 64118
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gloria Solomon
MTC-00010029
From: Jeffery Berg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeffery Berg
400 Crisfield Drive
Abingdon, MD 21009
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jeff Berg
MTC-00010030
From: Makinzi Mock
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Makinzi Mock
44 Buck Point Road
Bluffton, SC 29910
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Makinzi Mock
MTC-00010031
From: Greg Proch
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg Proch
16081 SW 156 Ave
Miami, Fl 33187
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Greg Proch
MTC-00010032
From: Alphild Setzer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alphild Setzer
15565 St. Therese Blv.
Brookfield, WI 53005
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of
[[Page 25247]]
corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will
once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the
reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alphild Setzer
MTC-00010033
From: Wayne Capurro
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wayne Capurro
10451 Gateway Dr.
City, NV 89511
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wayne Capurro
MTC-00010034
From: Becky Elliott
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Becky Elliott
Rt 3 hwy 946
Coldspring, tx 77331
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Becky Elliott
MTC-00010035
From: Kerry Pfeifer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kerry Pfeifer
500 VZ CR 4601
Ben Wheeler, TX 75754
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kerry Pfeifer
MTC-00010036
From: Lou Chavez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lou Chavez
15150 W. Ajo #2
Tucson, AZ 85735-2029
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lou R. Chavez
MTC-00010037
From: kim fiocco
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kim Fiocco
7203 st johns way
university park, fl 34201
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
[[Page 25248]]
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
kim fiocco
MTC-00010038
From: Don Brigham, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Brigham, Jr.
1002 E. Gallatin Ave.
Belgrade, MT 59714
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Don and Ann Brigham
MTC-00010039
From: Mark Maughan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Maughan
4266 James Madison Parkway
King George, VA 22485
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mark Maughan
MTC-00010040
From: Ella Rinaldi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ella Rinaldi
1565 S. Meadow Lane
Bolivar, MO 15613
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ella Rinaldi
MTC-00010041
From: Raymond Ravert
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Ravert
329 Hepburn St.
Milton, Pa 17847-2413
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Raymond R.Ravert
MTC-00010042
From: George Paradela
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Paradela
723 Second Street
Rodeo, Ca 94572-1206
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
[[Page 25249]]
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
George Paradela
MTC-00010043
From: Albion W. Frazier
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Albion W. Frazier
12227 Brompton Rd.
Carmel, In 46033-3366
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Albion W. Frazier
MTC-00010044
From: Kathryn Hrusovsky
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathryn Hrusovsky
33850 Gilbert Ct.
North Ridgeville, OH 44039
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Hrusovsky
MTC-00010045
From: Jasper Fortenberry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jasper Fortenberry
4507 Silver Wing Court
Castle Rock, CO 80104
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jasper Fortenberry
MTC-00010046
From: W.Lawrence Kimber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. Lawrence Kimber
106 Elmwood Ave.
East Aurora, NY 14052-2612
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
W. Lawrence Kimber
MTC-00010047
From: Ray Fleet and Mrs. Ruby Fleet
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Fleet and Mrs. Ruby Fleet
3606 Bon Park Ct
Dallas, TX 75228-1936
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a
[[Page 25250]]
serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ray and Ruby Fleet
MTC-00010048
From: Ann Porter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ann Porter
100 Sunset Dr.
Monroeville, PA 15146
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. The Microsoft suit can be
blamed for a large part of the stock market avalanche since July of
2000.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ann K. Porter
MTC-00010049
From: Linda Boone
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Boone
721 Taylor Ave.
Godfrey, IL 62035-2530
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
We also feel that what has been done to Microsoft could be
viewed as a punishment for being innovative and creative in using
one's talents to create something that can benefit many people.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Enoch and Linda Boone, Godfrey, Illinois
MTC-00010050
From: David Anthony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dr. Ashcroft:
Although I don't really know the detailed particulars of this
case, I do know that it is questionable that David Boies was the
attorney for Al Gore and for this Settlement case. There is a common
suspicion among us conspiracy theorists....
To me I understood that Clinton-Gore were somehow part owners of
CBS, CNN, ViaCom and Time-Warner. If that is true, it seems like the
much-publicized merge of AOL & Time-Warner might mean that the
hidden agenda is to bring Microsoft down so that AOL&Time-Warner
would be the Internet's major contender!!!! This would then be GREED
as the motive for this lawsuit. I am hoping and praying that the
truth here is revealed, and that true justice is served. I am so
proud of you and all the work you have done, and this is just one
more positive in this new administration. Thank you!
Sincerely
Patty Anthony
7311 Glen Haven Drive
San Antonio, TX 78239
email care of: [email protected]
MTC-00010051
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I was a very early user of personal computers before Microsoft
developed (took over from another company) an operating system. It
was chaos with multiple, competing operating systems in those first
years. It was far more expensive in two ways: (1) when a new
computer was purchased, it either had to be the same brand or it
required the purchase of a different operating system and (2)
individual programs were more expensive and often not available for
your brand of computer. The standardization of an operating system
accepted by most users has led to reduced costs and ease of using
programs, which range from technical through taxes to games. When
monopolies lead to higher costs or less accessibility, then we, the
public, need to be protected. In this case, we do not need to be
protected. In fact, the effort against Microsoft has left us in
jeopardy. Before retiring, I owned a small computerized accounting
firm. I did not expect the government to break up Arthur Anderson
and others in order to make it easier for me to compete. In a
similar way, I do not expect the government to be a ``partner'' with
firms trying to compete with Microsoft. I urge you to settle the
Microsoft case, leaving the standards that Microsoft has created,
which are a benefit to almost the entire public. Other systems are
available, if one chooses them. All most of us want is to have left
untouched the order from chaos that Microsoft has brought to the
computing world.
Thank you for your consideration.
King K. Jones
MTC-00010052
From: Thom (038) Adele Donnelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
It is time to let go of Microsoft. It was an ill-advised suit in
the first instance, initiated by a group of Anti Big Business Haters
in the Clinton Administration. Also call off the dogs in the States
that are looking to extort from microsoft in the same manner that
was employed in the Tobacco Case--an abuse of Federal Power that is
unlike anything this country has ever seen, and I hope we never see
again!
Thank You.
Thom Donnelly
Ft. Valley, VA
MTC-00010053
From: Rex Stubblefield
[[Page 25251]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, we have spend more than enough tax dollars trying
to prove that our capitalistic system of government doesn't work. I
live in a rural South Western Missouri community and have been
working with our computer system since before UNIVAC. Thanks to our
competitive business our planet and our USA is far ahead of our
forefathers of only fifty years ago!
Thanks for listening.
Rex D. Stubblefield
205 S. College Ave
Marionville, MO 65705
417-258-2967
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/1umc-marionville/
MTC-00010054
From: s-com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Breaking up Micro$oft will not stop any of their practises.
Forcing them to give software to schools and organizations just
furthers the anti-competition, since any software given prevents the
purchase of any thing else and encourages the use of only that
software. This is what they want now. Why help them. In my opinion,
faulty software is ``profitable''. That is, if the product does not
work as advertised, the consumer is encouraged to replace the
product. This requires the spending of more money for the ``fix''.
If the so-called ``Lemon Laws'' applied to software then the faulty
product could be recalled. This would remove the ``profitability''
factor and force the release of good products in the first place.
Thanks for letting me give my opinion.
MTC-00010055
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:04pm
Subject: Why Microsoft must be punished.
First of all I am a MCSE in NT 4.0. This means I have passed
enough of the Microsoft exams to become a Microsoft Certified
Systems Engineer. I am now required 2 years later to become a MCSE
in 2000 which I have to study hard for, pay for, and ultimately
loose more hair for because 2 years from now I will be doing it
again. Anyway here is my issues:
(1) Security is terrible. Microsoft continually releases
products which they claim is more secure then ever. I haven't seen
proof of that at all yet. In the hacker community Microsoft is the
target for practice. Just about any idiot can break into there
default load (this is where their argument kicks in). They will tell
you that their system is secure just not by default. That's like
selling a security door and claiming it is secure but yet it doesn't
have a lock and there is a big hole in the middle that you might
have to fix first. Administrators in the IT industry are pretty fed
up with the fact that almost every week we are working longer and
longer hours to keep our systems patched (can only be done on nights
and weekends away from our families). Then on top of it all we have
our own government letting in foreigners on a H1B visa take away our
jobs and driving down our wages (we work as many hours as just about
any Lawyer, we cancel vacations, are paged in the middle of the
night and make $65000 annually without over time says salary studies
(I personally make 20,000 less then that). We the IT industry are
fed up with our companies telling us we can't afford new server
hardware cause it is going to cost us a small fortune to upgrade our
desktop hardware to support the next release of Windows (Somehow I
think Intel is involved in this whole crime as well). I shouldn't
even tell you this but did you know you can use your screen saver to
get Domain Admin permission on a NT box? Sorry went off on a right
angle with that one.
(2) Not Stable. Explain to me why our number one answer given on
our helpdesk is reboot. Then tell me why that normally fixes just
about every problem. I have a Linux machine running at home that I
haven't rebooted in months. The NT servers at my site gets rebooted
quarterly. The other day our DHCP service stopped on one of our
machines which prevented the first floor from getting on the
Network. I bet if I asked Microsoft what we should do to prevent
this from happening again there answer would be ``upgrade to Windows
2000'' (cha-ching), I can here the money moving towards them now.
Personally I never really complained that much about Microsoft. If
everything was always 100 percent stable I wouldn't have a reason to
be employed where I work. However they imply time and time again
that there Operating System gets better and better with every
release.
(3) They will not change. Did you know as I write this email
they are putting plans together to crush Linux. 1 year ago they were
saying that Linux wasn't a threat. Guess what? They were wrong.
Linux is rapidly catching up to them in the Server market but they
are training sales people to find the Linux machines within
companies and supply a lot of bogus facts about how windows is
superior to Linux (most of which not true). I wish a judge could
walk into the court room and have a Windows NT (2000) server sitting
there on a network with a Linux machine. Get ourselves a good
(doesn't need to be great) hacker and prove to the judge that the
quality of the software is terrible. Did you know that at one time
NT used to claim that they were C2 certified. It's true. NT is C2
certified as long as it is not on a network (what good is it if it
isn't on a network?).
Well I guess these are some of my biggest beefs.
Please don't settle with them supplying free software to
education. This will only make things worse.
Good luck
Jamie Jansen, MCSE
Sr. LAN Administrator
(952) 703-1779
CC:rep.jim.abeler@ house.leg.state.mn.us@ inetgw,rep.ro...
MTC-00010056
From: DavidBowlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:11pm
Subject: Opinion on how to handle Microsoft Proposed Settlement
Gentlemen,
I suggest that the Justice Department suggest to California and
the other 9 states that elected to not settle--to not carry
Microsoft products within their states. Maybe if California and the
others realize that if Microsoft were not available, their economies
would severely suffer, there would be some room for compromise.
David Bowlin
Sammamish, WA
MTC-00010057
From: Thomas J. Klinect
To: Microsoft ATR, fin@mobilization office.com@inetgw
Date: 1/10/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax,
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their
constituents, important this issue is to their constituents.
When you send out the letter, please do one of the following:
--Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at 1-800-641-2255;
--Email us at [email protected] to confirm that you took
action.
If you have any questions, please give us a call at 1-800-965-
4376. Thank you for your help in this matter.
The Attorney General's fax and email are noted below.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
For more information, please visit these websites:
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
Thomas J. Klinect
TPI Inc.
619-303-3292
TPI, INCORTORATED
2650 JAMACHA ROAD # 147, PMB 13
EL CAJON, CA 92019
FAX: 619-670-6157
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Justice
Department lawsuit against Microsoft. If this lawsuit had succeeded
to the extent envisioned by government lawyers, Microsoft's
competitors, and some on the federal bench, the real penalty would
have devolved to the entire IT industry, and thus to the American
economy and people.
Just because Microsoft's competitors have been unable to develop
products that are comparable with Microsoft's products in
[[Page 25252]]
value to the consumer, it does not follow that the government should
step in and. in effect, ``dumb down'' Microsoft in an effort make
those less innovative companies more competitive with Microsoft. We
have sect this principle tried with regard to our national
educational policies, and it simply does: work.
It is good for a company like Microsoft to stand on a principle
of unapologetic excellence. If its products and innovations are
better than anyone else's, then that is its reward for its work
ethic, perseverance, and technical excellence. No laws are violated
when a company develops superior products.
Similarly, if Microsoft's products and innovations slip into
second, or third place then that is where Microsoft deserves to be.
That is the essence of the competitive marketplace. To have the
government attempt to subvert the role of these competitive forces
can serve only to upset the natural dynamic of the marketplace.
The settlement now in place, one in which Microsoft has agreed
to an equal pricing structure for licensing preinstalled software to
hardware makers, provides a reasonable basis for closure of this
matter, and I urge the Department of Justice to seek acceptance by
all parties. I believe that this will best serve the interests of
all of the parties, but more important, it will best serve the
interests of the American people.
Sincerely,
MTC-00010058
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't believe the public is served when judicial oversite or
legislation is made to stiffle companies that create technology to
the degree that Microsoft has. The main reason we have this
predicament in my opinion, is that ``weakened'' competitors like
AOL, SUN Micro, et.al., and their legal teams purposly sought remedy
through the courts as a viable competitive marketing tactic.
Unfortunately for the consumer, these ``do-gooders'' have influenced
the justice system to prosecute Microsoft for being successful. The
band-wagon effect in this is huge with lobyists, lawyers and those
``weakened'' competitors all reaping employment and huge sums of
money. And then there is Microsoft, trying to exist by selling what
we all agree are a great series of products addressing consumer
preferences and providing what the market demands, and being
punished for being successful at it. RTP.
MTC-00010059
From: Bryan A. Woodruff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
This email is to express our opinion on the Microsoft
settlement. My wife and I approve of the settlement with Microsoft
and believe that it is in the public's best interest to complete the
process and avoid continued litigation. We also encourage the
remaining 9 states to join the Federal government and the other
states to agree to these settlement terms.
Bryan and Lisa Woodruff,
Redmond, WA
MTC-00010060
From: Jim Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a giveaway that will barely hurt
Microsoft. The terms are a disgrace. I hope that the abstaining
Attorneys Generals hang in there and get what's right.
James G. Miller
1100 Irvine Blvd # 491
Tustin, CA 92780-3534
MTC-00010061
From: CAD/Pacific
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I truly wish that the federal government would simply just drop
this whole case against Microsoft. To be sure Microsoft probably
does not have entirely clean hands. But let the free-market kill
Microsoft. Linux is an up & coming operating system. Apple Computer
is making a come-back. Let Microsoft kill themselves. If the
government continues it's involvement, then all those persons
supporting Microsoft will forever blame the government for
Microsoft's failures. But if the government drops its case and
allows the free-market to regulate Microsoft, then Microsoft will
either change its ways or drown itself and have no one to blame but
them selves.
Bill Goode
Small Business Owner in Los Angeles
MTC-00010062
From: John Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General Ashcroft,
I would like to see an end to the Microsoft suit. I think this
issue is hurting not only Microsoft, but the whole computer
industry. We need to put it behind us. It does not help the economy
to continue this case any longer. I also feel that Microsoft is
being persecuted because of the fact that they are big. They make
better products than most of their competition.
John L. Wagner
780 Norfolk Drive
Carson City, NV 89703
MTC-00010063
From: ward j. burkholder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case and move on to more important cases.
Ward J. Burkholder
230 Pleasant View Dr.
Kerrville, Texas 78028
[email protected]
MTC-00010064
From: K (038) J Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:28pm
Subject: Proposed settlement is fair
Dear Justice Department,
I believe that the proposed settlement between the US and
Microsoft is fair and should be implemented. Further, I think the
nine States should stop their independent efforts to seek further
remedies, and join with the US to settle.
It is interesting that most of the opposition to settlement
comes from Microsoft's competitors and their employees. Our laws
were designed to make sure consumers are treated fairly, not to
permit companies to gang up on a company they don't like.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Butler
57 Wildwood Lane, Friday Harbor, WA 98250
(360) 378-7969
MTC-00010065
From: Jim Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Its time to stop wasting our tax payers money on this type
litigation. This country was built on FREE ENTERPRISE! If someone
builds a ``better mouse trap'' let us be the judge out here in the
market place.
JP Tate
Chairman of the Board
Culligan of Charlotte
MTC-00010066
From: Robert C. Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: The government has ostensibly pursued Microsoft case
on behalf of consumers, however, the very consumers it has sought to
protect are being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had
on the technology market and the entire national economy. The
proposed settlement, agreed to in 9 states, encourages consumer
product choice, promotes product innovation & provides non-Microsoft
related computer & software manufacturers with confidence in
marketing their own products. It also frees up the Department of
Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm
the public.
We think the State Attorneys General should discontinue this
litigation!!
Sincerely,
Bob & Carolyn Phillips
122 Raintree Blvd.
Niceville, Fl 32578-3908
MTC-00010067
From: David Ure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Congratulations on achieving the long awaited settlement on the
Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit. Your efforts and desire to find the
compromise and balance for the technology industry is greatly
appreciated. The lawsuit should never have happened and the economy
and innovations can now begin to progress again.
[[Page 25253]]
As a legislator I am always concerned with economic
opportunities. Utah is a technology state and we need to start
generating interest again in creating new products and ideas.
Resolution of concerns for the Microsoft competitors is needed. It
appears that AOL, Oracle and Apple have all had their concerns
addressed. I hightly support the settlement and hope that you will
bring this issue to a close.
Sincerely,
David Ure
MTC-00010068
From: Chris Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:40pm
Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT SETTLE (fwd)
Thank you for your thoughtful correspondence concerning the
Microsoft antitrust case. We value hearing from citizens on matters
of public interest and appreciate your taking the time to express
your concerns. As you know, on November 6, 2001, the United States
Department of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement.
California did not join in that settlement because the settlement
would not accomplish the goals we set when we initially filed the
case. Nor would it accomplish the remedial goals set by the U.S.
Court of Appeals: (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar
conduct in the future; (2) to spark competition; and (3) to deprive
Microsoft of its illegal gains. The judge of the federal trial court
currently is considering the settlement. You may express your
opinion to the court by filing written comments with the U.S.
Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, at the following email
address: [email protected] Please type ``Microsoft Comments''
in the subject line. You may also fax comments to 202-307-1454, or
mail comments to Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
20530-0001.
Again, thank you for sharing your views in this case.
Chris Williams
[email protected]>
I am a concerned citizen, student, and IT worker. Under the
currently propesed settlement, Microsoft will loose nothing and it's
monopoly will remain intact. They have promised $1.1 billion to
school, $900 million of which is Microsoft software, ``at cost.''
Tis means Microsoft pays $0.14 to burn the cds and writes the cost
down as $300, or whatever the wholesale price is for the specific
product. DO NOT SETTLE FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAN A BREAKUP OF THE
COMPANY! Period.
MTC-00010069
From: Phillip David Mosher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft case
Sirs:
Since DOS ver. 3, I have used products produced by Microsoft.
They have been quality products, designed to make our lives easier.
Microsoft has beaten their competition in the market place. I now
use Windows 2000 and Office XP. I am very pleased with these
products.
I do not feel that the Justice Dept. has been fair in their
pursuit of Microsoft. I do not feel that the Justice Dept. and the
states involved have the best interest of me, the end user, in view
in this case. This case has communicated one thing quite clearly--If
you have good products, can beat your competitions and produce
exceptional growth, the government will surely treat you very badly.
Microsoft has helped our nation. Microsoft has changed the way we do
things, making life easier. Why are we punishing a good thing?
I remember when the government took Kodak to task over film
patents because Kodak had done too well in building good products.
Kodak was forced to release some of those patents. Today Japan
controls the film market. Is that what the Justice Dept. wants to do
to Microsoft?
Sincerely,
Phillip D. Mosher
706--84th ST NW
Bradenton, FL 34209
[email protected]
MTC-00010070
From: Robert H. Hacke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Please stop wasting our money on the prosecution of Microsoft!!!
Our markets and the entire economy are being affected in a negative
way by this ongoing farce. It would seem that when a person or a
company succeeds in this country, the government interferes to put a
stop to that success. This is harming our country more than helping
it.
The proposed settlement should be immediately accepted and the
litigation completed!
Sincerely,
Robert & Joanne Hacke
10215 White Mt. Rd.
Sun City, AZ 85351
MTC-00010071
From: Louise Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:46pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs-
I support the Bush administration`s position on the Microsoft
settlement.
Sincerely,
Louise Kennedy
MTC-00010072
From: carol williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:50pm
Subject: MICROSFT SETTLEMENT
I SUPPORT THIS SETTLEMENT AND THINK WE NEED TO BE DONE WITH IT
ALREADY..DON'T WE HAVE ENOUGH BIGGER THINGS TO WORRY
ABOUT....SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH AND BE DONE WITH THIS
ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MTC-00010073
From: Kathy Mohnkern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:50pm
Subject: my complaint
The only thing I want to say is I bought a computer three years
ago. It got damaged and when I went to buy another one I had to buy
it with the same microsoft programs I already had. So I had to spend
my hard earned money one the same thing. I think microsoft should
have to pay all customers back for their forced double purchases.
Thanks
Kathy Mohnkern
MTC-00010075
From: tiger2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
I believe it is time to move along and let the American spirit
of free enterprise continue. I support the Microsoft Corp. and
believe the Federal and State & Local Governments should cease and
desist from any further persecution of Microsoft.
Ed Hart
84-35 64th Road
Middle Village, NY 11379
MTC-00010076
From: J.C. Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1808 West End Avenue Suite 1214
Post Office Box 23348
Nashville, TN 37202-3348
(615) 327-3120 Voice
(615) 327-3126 Fax
Email: [email protected]
January 10, 2002
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Subject: Comment on Proposed Final Judgment
Dear Ms. Hesse
The Tennessee Institute for Public Policy joins with our fellow
members of the State Policy Network, and encourages you to accept
the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
We are a state-based, non-partisan policy research group dedicated
to promoting free markets and open competition.
This settlement reflects a triumph of the rule of law. It is a
perfect map of remedies laid alongside the areas where the Appeals
Court found against Microsoft. Certain Microsoft competitors and
other critics of the proposed settlement make the core of their
objections a call for more stringent restrictions, ranging from
prohibition on what they call ``product tying'' to a breakup of the
company. More extreme critics complain that the remedies do not
address products that were not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to
[[Page 25254]]
state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be immense.
The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an
order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the court
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's
liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In our view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
As leaders in advancing free market competition in our
respective states we believe this settlement serves the best
interests of the American public. It fairly resolves a complex and
burdensome anti-trust case that is having severe impacts far beyond
one company, a case that is acting as a drag on one of the most
vibrant sectors of our economy. Settlement of this case will free
the high-technology industry to put its fullest efforts into
innovation and creativity, and will spur competition in a way that
will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration. Please include in official
records and court transcripts.
Signed,
John C. Bowman
Director of Education Policy
(Electronic Signature)
MTC-00010077
From: Barbara Seels
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/10/02 5:59pm
Subject: microsoft proposal
As a professional educator, I want to speak against the
microsoft proposal to give equipment to schools. This is another
marketing ploy without the potential to cause substantive change
except to drive other vendors out of the market. Microsoft will
probably do this irregardless of this decree. Equipment without a
context or constraints on what is given is probably going to make
little difference. The schools are best when they represent the
diversity in the market also.
MTC-00010079
From: Sue Fuessel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sue Fuessel
4077 Commissioners Lane
San Angelo, Tx 76905-7557
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers'; dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Odis and Sue Fuessel
MTC-00010080
From: Jonathan Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jonathan Wright
576 Shady Grove Drive
Montgomery, AL 36109
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Wright
MTC-00010081
From: Don Wilkinson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Wilkinson 6631 Apache Run
Theodore, Al 36582
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create
[[Page 25255]]
new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
don wilkinson
MTC-00010082
From: Robert Adams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Adams
10512 School House Ln.
Austin, TX 78750
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert Adams
MTC-00010083
From: Debbie G Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like my voice to be heard where the Microsoft Settlement
is concerned. I believe the agreement reached between Microsoft, the
nine states and the federal government is very reasonable and fair
to all parties involved! I do not wish to have the litigation
prolonged.
The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation
that benefits only a few and stifles innovation.
I say, SIGN THE SETTLEMENT ``as is'' and move on to more
important things.
Concerned US Citizen
Debbie Turner
2690 Throatlatch Lane
Marietta, Georgia 30064
MTC-00010084
From: The Shaws
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am 63 years old. I use my computer a lot in community and
church related volunteer activities. I am pleased with my Microsoft
software. I believe it is time to get this litigation settled once
and for all.
Robert H. Shaw, Jr.
MTC-00010085
From: John Baitinger, Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Baitinger, Sr.
P.O.Box 171
Alloway, NJ 08001-0171
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John S. Baitinger, Sr.
MTC-00010086
From: Bill (038) Ann Hauckes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone! They are the reason why so many people
have computers in the first place. Can you imagine if everybody's
computer ran a different operating system and different software?
It's bad enough that we have the ``Microsoft people'' and the ``MAC
people'' ( and the 3 people who use Linux) not being able to
communicate! So what if Bill Gates is the richest man in the world?
He deserves it. More power to him! Why don't you do something about
AOL/Time-Warner or the drug companies or the insurance companies or
the tobacco companies???
MTC-00010087
From: Hoffman (038) Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General Ashcroft,
Please complete the settlement of the Microsoft case and let the
market place determine the winners and losers, not government.
Marcus Hoffman
P.S. I am not a Microsoft employee.
MTC-00010088
From: Sharon Herron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the current proposed settlement!!!!!!!!!!!!
MTC-00010089
From: Tom Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
Enough already. Any further litigation is not in the consumers
interest. This is about bashing success AND money. Letting Time-
Warner-AOL, Sun Microsystems and Oracle use the Justice Department
to fight their market battles is ridiculous. State AG's in
particular are doing a consumers a disservice. All they want is
money and political recognition. Let the free market work. If MS
fails the consumer they will fail without this total waste of time
and resources.
Thanks,
Tom Stephenson
Surprise, Arizona
MTC-00010090
From: Joe Goodson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:25pm
Subject: Litigation
Personally, I think that the states are just trying to pull a
Bill Clinton and try to snooker Microsoft out of money like they did
the cigarrette makers. They need to STOP litigation NOW!!
MTC-00010091
From: Aaron Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:27pm
Subject: stop attacking Microsoft
The Clinton Administration started attacking Microsoft which led
to the current bear market we are currently struggling to get out
of. It's a crock of ca-ca that the Reno Justice Department used
Microsoft products as a tool to attack Microsoft. Why, because
Microsoft is a leading innovator. Lead, follow or get out of the way
as Lee Iacocaa said of Chrysler. I have personally enjoyed and
profitted from Microsoft products and I stand behind the company all
the way. Microsoft is what the American dream is all about. Make a
product people need/want, market it, and advance an industry, a
nation. Bill Gates did for computers what Henry Ford did for
[[Page 25256]]
the car. Innovation must be allowed to reign free.
Release Microsoft from the anti-trust suit and let free
competition rule!
Aaron B. Johnson
9824 Manor
Allen Park, MI 48101
MTC-00010092
From: Larry Woldt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:28pm
Subject: Private Depositions
That is my court room and my prosecutors and, one of the
remaining nine states suing Microsoft is Minnesota where I live.
I do not believe in ``sealed'' settlements that allow companies
to hide what they did by paying off someone and I certainly don't
believe that a publicly traded company in a federal court has the
right to hid sworn testimony.
There are a few million Americans out here who pay for two-
thirds of the people involved (the judge and the prosecutor) and we
pay for the courts themselves. I want to know what Microsoft is
``swearing'' to and believe that I have every right to have access
to that testimony.
Thank You,
Larry Woldt
[email protected]
MTC-00010093
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am a computer user who always felt I was able to purchase any
software program I wanted. I have not felt that Microsoft has
prevented me from doing this in any way. In my opinion the lawsuits
are just screwing up the consumer by doling out multi dollars to the
States. They are not interested in the consumer, they are looking
for all the cash-cows they can find so the politions and the lawyers
can benefit. Don' hurt us consumers any more by awarding any more
funds that Microsoft has to pay to the States. Enough is enough.
A. E. Williamson
MTC-00010094
From: gary blunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Please do not allow consumers to be hurt anymore.There has been
a waste of tax payers money on this and a waste of time for the
department of justice. Please do the right thing.
Gary
MTC-00010095
From: Dave Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:40pm
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
I have written today to comment on the settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. While I understand
the honorable intentions of the judge and court in settling the case
in order to prompt the economic recovery of the nation's largest
company and thereby, in theory, to prompt economic recovery of the
nation, I deplore the toothless settlement that has been accepted by
the Department of Justice prosecutors.
There are three things I feel must be included in a settlement
that would enact real change in the operating system market and
allow for true competition:
1. Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
2. The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications for Windows
operating systems), which is already part of the proposed
settlement.
3. Microsoft's success, while due in some part to internal
innovation, relies heavily on technologies developed by the public
sector. The Internet and much of the networking and software
technology essential for Microsoft Windows have been fostered by
federal grants and Department of Defense research money. As such,
any Microsoft networking protocols which build or modify these
publicly developed standards must be published in full and approved
by an independent network protocol body. This will prevent Microsoft
from using their market position to seize de facto control of the
Internet.
I trust that you will attempt to enact real and meaningful
change in the operating system market. This is a true national
security issue. Microsoft may be important to the nation's economy
in the short term, but long term economic security can only come
from a free and efficient market for operating systems and
networking technologies.
I care about these issues and I vote.
David M. Jones
1142 Key St.
Houston, Texas 77009
713-880-4233
CC: Senator Gramm, Senator Hutchison
MTC-00010096
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir
It is my opinion that much too much time, money, and resources
are being spent pursuing a company that has every right to coduct
its business as it sees fit. The robust economy we have had for the
last ten years is a direct result of this company, a company some
anti-capitolists would like to see destroyed to feed their socialist
egos. Business is what made this country of mine great, and ruining
businessess is what will destroy it. I urge you to dismiss the suit
against this great company and use my money, time, and resources on
cases worthy of prosecution.
Sincerely,
Ronald Vandenboom
524 124th St
Franksville, WI 53126
CC: [email protected]@inetgw,[email protected]...
MTC-00010097
From: Sherry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:51pm
Subject: stop wasting taxpayers' money on the persecution of
Microsoft.
Stop wasting taxpayers' money on the decade-long competitor-
driven persecution of Microsoft. America's taxpayers have had to
fund this prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating
harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies.
The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice,
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.
Some of the State Attorneys General want to continue this
litigation: Don't let them! I support the Bush Administration and
Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
Sherry A Jones
9021 N Swan Rd Unit B
Milwaukee Wi 53224
414.371.2305
MTC-00010098
From: Jan (038) Dick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
We feel that enough tax money has been spent trying to ruin
Microsoft. The competitors who initiated the action are jealous of
Microsoft's ability to produce software which is good for the
consumer and have tried to get ``a piece of the action.'' The
Clinton DOJ was more than willing to pursue a successful company in
order to cater to the contributors to their party.
We feel that Microsoft should never have been prosecuted in the
first place and thus should be left alone now. The sooner, the
better.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jan & Dick Rees
816 Woodbine St.
Willard, OH 44890
P.S. Keep up the good work. We support you all the way. God
Bless you and God Bless America.
MTC-00010099
From: james jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 6:59pm
[[Page 25257]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a transparent sellout of the public
interest and a travesty of justice. It sends the message that crime
is OK, as long as the perpetrator is big enough.
The settlement has so many loopholes designed to allow the
perpetrator to continue the activity that the case was all about,
that it is a legal nullity.
Indeed, the perpetrator right now is, in full public view,
continuing this activity, while daring the States that are
continuing to pursue the case to encompass its current activity, to
exploit such pursuit as a ground for further delay.
Microsoft has to date almost successfully demonstrated that
infinite delay is a valid legal strategy, and that bribery of King
George's DOJ is an accomplished fact.
Yours Truly,
Dr James L Jenkins
MTC-00010100
From: Paul M League
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 10, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
Department of Justice
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
The proposed Justice Department settlement with Microsoft
encourages consumer product-choice, promotes product innovation, and
provides non-Microsoft related computer and software manufacturers
with confidence in marketing their own products. It also frees up
Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that
currently do actually harm the public, as well as the more pressing
anti-terror efforts.
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire
to settle this lawsuit, and ask that you, the various State
Attorneys, and the Court of Jurisdiction also do the same.
Sincerely,
Paul M. League
PO Box 7007
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
1.310.277.3244
MTC-00010101
From: Chad Bennion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
Attorney General John Ashcroft;
I am sending you this email in support of the Microsoft/
Department of Justice settlement offer. The Lawsuit should never
have been pursued by our federal government and should have been
left to the Microsoft competitors to resolve. This mired issue
should be brought to an end. I strongly urge your acceptance of the
settlement.
Sincerely;
Chad E. Bennion
Utah House of Representatives
District 44
MTC-00010102
From: THOMAS PHILLIPS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft is being punished for being successful. This is not
the American way. Let Microsoft again lead the way. We will all gain
and grow with thier success.
Thomas Phillips
2525 Ocean Blvd. # H5
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
MTC-00010103
From: Minda Stillion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have personally felt my family very affected by this long
process, both in our pursuit of the American Dream, and finacially.
I long for settlement to take place, so we can see the positive
effect in the stock market and job markets, so that eventually
confidence in innovative freedom will heal and return.
Sincerely,
Mirinda Stillion
MTC-00010104
From: Ruth Silveira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Its time to knock off the witch hunt for and against Microsoft
and Bill Gates!! Can't the Federal Gov't. find someone else to
harass? This whole thing has been very costly and try as you might
you didn't succeed at driving Microsoft out of business and breaking
up the company that has made computers accessible to all of us.
LEAVE them alone. Go after the people in our government that have
shady dealings.
Ruth Silveira
MTC-00010105
From: David Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I completely support the settlement with Microsoft, Inc.; but
would have liked to see Microsoft completely exonerated without
having to pay out one cent in the settlement. Market forces, not the
Judicial System should be the sole determiner of what products are
put on the market place; and the Democrats' consistent attempts to
compromise this system is as Communistic as Marx or Lenin
themselves. If ever another enterpreneur can make a better product
than Microsoft then let that product come to the forefront, and we
will purchase it.
Thank You,
David Tucker
Tellico Plains, TN
MTC-00010106
From: Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computor consumer, I believe that the action brought
against Microsoft is an abomination. I use many of their products
because they are the best for my use, not because I was forced.
When I got my first modem, my provider gave me Netscape software
as a default when I installed the program. They are not being sued
for anti-trust.
There are several products and systems that do the same thing.
Is it okay for them but not Microsoft.
My installation disk for Microsoft Windows 98, also has a
folderful of other internet providers that I can opt for if I so
desire. Is that anti-trust? I equate this action with those who want
to take our language away and create chaos by having more than one
official language.
I use Microsoft products because I like them and consider them
best for my needs. I have never felt obligated or forced to use any
of their products. If a computor manufacturer feels that Microsoft
is being unfair in any way, they should choose a different OS for
their product, and let us choose our own. Better yet, have them
install the OS that the customer wants at the time of purchase.
MTC-00010107
From: Jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Just a quick comment on the Microsoft case-I am glad it is over.
Considering the fact that the DOJ failed to provide any evidence
that MS is a monopoly or restricted competition. All the case did
was to further prove that any successful company can have its
jealous competitors have the government do to it that they could not
do in an open marketplace.
It is a good thing that the MS case will be settled at the
federal level. I just hope that all of the state attorneys-general
stop this extortion as well.
Sincerely,
Jeff Mills
[email protected]
CC: Jeff Mills
MTC-00010108
From: Kelly Casaday
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a former aide to former Congressman Merrill Cook and support
the proposed settlement with Microsft.
Kelly Casaday
MTC-00010109
From: Spencer Stokes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
I am writing to urge you to settle the Microsoft law suit. I
believe that the federal government should not be involved in free
enterprise system. As a conservative I believe that the markets
should dictate commerce and not the federal government.
Please do your duty and work for the settlement.
Spencer Stokes
Former Executive Director of the Utah Republican Party.
MTC-00010110
From: Jason Frankenfield
[[Page 25258]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:41pm
Subject: Dear Judge:
Dear Judge:
I urge you to end the trial against Microsoft without taking an
adverse action against Microsoft or imposing any form of sanctions
on it. As a consumer, I do not believe that Microsoft's conduct has
been harmful. In fact, Microsoft has brought incredible products to
consumers at reasonable prices. Microsoft should be allowed the
liberty to design and market its products as it likes, and to
conduct its business operation without government interference.
Please dismiss the actions against Microsoft with prejudice.
Please do not impose sanctions against Microsoft.
Respectfully,
Jason Frankenfield
MTC-00010111
From: Gerald E Vinella Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Busch Administration and Microsoft to settle this
lawsuit. It is not healthy for this country to allow this to
continue.
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Vinella Jr.
MTC-00010112
From: Mr. SJB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings!
I fully and unequivocally support the DOJ's attempt to settle
the lawsuit against Bill Gate's Microsoft Corp. I am aware, like
other Americans, that 9 states have chosen not to sign onto this
plan, but I believe that, truly, ``enough is enough'' and its time
to move on, and leave this sordid affair in the past, where it
belongs.
High technology, as exemplied by companies like Microsoft,
Oracle, Intel, & many, many others, cannot have its ideas,
innovations, and such be stifled by ``red tape'', bureaucracy,
lawsuits, and other wasteful government intrusions such as what was
begun by the Clinton Administration. Please use this golden
opportunity to end this charade once and for all, and while
Microsoft does not escape unscathed, their punishment has already
been delivered, and unfortunately, the national economy, the
technology industry, and the consumer have all suffered along with
them, both directly and indirectly.
Thank you for your time & attention to this note.
God Bless America
9.11.01
MTC-00010113
From: GARY PORTER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 7:53pm
It is my hope that the court will accept the settlement agreed
to by the DOJ and some of the states. It seems a fair and reasonable
response to the anti-trust case.
MTC-00010114
From: Dale Langford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dale Langford
2001 Christine
Pampa, TX 79065
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dale Langford
MTC-00010115
From: kingsland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have used Microsoft Products for years and have been very
satisfied in most cases. I use Netscape and do not feel that
Microsoft has ruined Netscape. In fact, competition has probably
made their (both) browsers more user friendly and reliable.
P.G. King, Electrical Engineer (Retired)
MTC-00010116
From: Steve Berryman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Berryman
101 Mohican Trail
Lake Kiowa, TX 76240
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Steve Berryman
MTC-00010117
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I have followed the developments of the Microsoft settlement for
the past couple of years, and I am still amazed that this
corporation has been dragged through so much persecution.
I am a middle school teacher in Denver, Colorado and not a
computer whiz, but I feel that Microsoft has done nothing but help
me. Three years ago when I purchased my first computer, I purchased
a Hewlett Packard that came with the Microsoft operating system and
browser. If I had had to buy all these things separately I wouldn't
have know what to buy and, too, it probably would have cost me more.
I was very grateful that Mr. Gates had had the foresight to guide me
in this process Since that time I have become quite proficient with
the computer. I'm on the Internet now(AOL), and I'm accomplishing
great things. Not only am I buying and selling stocks on line just
last week a light switch went out in my kitchen and I logged on to
``Ask Jeeves'' and found out how to replace it myself.
If you restrict Microsoft's ability to create and innovate then
you restrict the genius of mankind. They have done good things for
the consumer and good things for our country. If the Department of
Justice had spent the time and money pursuing terrorism and Bin
Laden, the tragedy in New York could have been adverted. Instead you
have been pursuing Bill Gates who has contributes a lot money to
better the world and help people.
The majority of people unhappy about Microsoft are his
competitors. They are distraught because they could not do what
Microsoft has already done.
A Colorado Consumer,
Judy J. Simmons
[[Page 25259]]
MTC-00010118
From: lucy zarate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
For the last four years I have been following the debate over
the freedom to innovate. During this time my only hope has been that
this Microsoft case should be settled as soon as possible. This
settlement will certainly help our economy, especially in these
difficult times, and it will benefit us the consumers and the
software industry.
Thank you in advance for helping expedite this case.
Lucy Z. Breton
MTC-00010119
From: SCOT WOODROOF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I would like to take this opportunity to state emphatically
about how I feel about the settlement with Microsoft. This was
another case of blatant assault on private industry by a so called
president, and Justice Department that only served to spend more tax
payer money. I applaud the manner in which John Ashcroft and the
current Justice Department handled this situation to restore the
tech industry and the confidence of it's investors. The down turn in
the Nasdaq, and specifically the tech industry can be traced to the
beginnings of this ridiculous lawsuit. Please keep this settlement
in place, or we can only look forward to more of the same in the
capital markets. I would like to take this opportunity to also tell
you what a wonderful job our real Justice Department is doing for
this great United States!! Thank You!
Scot Woodroof
MTC-00010120
From: Rev. Samuel M. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inet...
Date: 1/10/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although I am a staunch Constitutional Conservative, I
STRENUOUSLY disagree with the ACU on this point. Please DO NOT
settle with Microsoft. They have done everything they could to stomp
anyone and everyone who stands in their way. I would like to see
Bill Gates even imprisoned for his callous and unbending attitudes.
Rev. Samuel M. Smith
Travel Advisor
Affordable World Travel & Tours
Editor, Publisher Up Way Publications
Bible Instructor Followers of Jesus Christ Fellowship
MTC-00010121
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:11pm
Subject: Government Waste
It's time to drop the suit against Microsoft , stop wasting
taxpayer money, and let them get on with their legitimate business
of making money. Sometimes it seems that we tend to punish success
and reward failure.
David Raun,
Westerville, OH
MTC-00010122
From: Brent Lattin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I want to voice my support for the Microsoft settlement. The
issues involved grow older and less relevant by the hour and the
shape of the competitive landscape and economic conditions as a
whole make it imperative that this case end sooner rather than
later.
Sincerely,
Brent Lattin
MTC-00010123
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think this case should be settled. I have found it ridiculous
in the first place. Had it not been for Microsoft most people would
never have learned how to use a computer. They were innovative in
getting a good program out there for the lay person. One that could
be used by everyone. I have worked on DOS platforms, Windows and
UNIX and know that Windows is the best. I know lots of senior
citizens (I am 59) have gone online because of the ease through
windows.
I have never had a problem using any Internet access I wanted
through Windows. In fact I do not use Microsoft's Internet access I
am on CompuServe. I find this whole legal action silly and a waste
of taxpayers money and government time. We have more important
things to worry about in the economy to not settle this case and get
it done with.
I have been using Windows since 1988.
Yours,
Carolyn Weaver
MTC-00010124
From: zebidiah(a)attbi.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please end this foolishness. Microsoft is not the enemy.
Thank you,
Gary P. Beck
MTC-00010125
From: Howard H. Hatton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Drop all litagation against Micrtosoft. This company is doing a
good job in the market and is much more valuable to the, economy,
balance of payments, competition world wide and the people of the US
than all their competetors combined. This litagation is only
benefiting the trial lawyers and other special interest groups that
stand to gain from this futhermore the judges in this case are not
have the expertise to properly judge this. Remember that Microsoft
is not only in competition with American companies but are in
competition world wide.
Howard Hatton
[email protected]
MTC-00010126
From: Tom Hemmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dave Wilson of The LA Times writes about Apple's pre-show hype
and the associated let-down at the keynote, concluding ``But the
company has no real model for growth. Microsoft's monopoly power
precludes any massive shift away from Windows, so how can Apple sell
more boxes? The best thing Apple can do is to make computers that
seamlessly integrate into a Windows network.'' See, even brain
challenged reporters know about microsoft. And you want to give
them, what amounts to a subsidy in education? I bet that between all
of you, you would be hard pressed to come up with two gonads.
MTC-00010127
From: Martin C. Ritter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not let Microsoft off the hook. A slap on the wrist
will only embolden them. Competition as we have traditionally known
it in America has already been dealt a body blow by this company
which has turned lying, cheating, and stealing into ``business as
usual.''
MTC-00010128
From: Vicki Corona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
Dear Attorney Ashcroft: First, thank you for being the wonderful
AG you are! We're so thrilled you were confirmed! We love the entire
Bush administration. I think most citizens knew that God couldn't
possibly allow any more slime in the White House. Second, I just
received an email concerning the Microsoft ``trials'' and would like
to add my voice to the others. Without Microsoft, I don't think any
of us ``ordinary folk'' would EVER have been able to learn how to
manipulate a computer. If anything, Bill Gates should be thanked,
not sued. Jealousy always raises it's ugly, evil head when any
entrepreneur is successful. He created something fabulous, useful,
and easy for the masses . . . . Gates should be rewarded, not
penalized! Let's stop wasting taxpayer money and leave him alone to
create something else we can all enjoy. Thank you and God bless you
richly.
Vicki Corona
MTC-00010129
From: John Sturrock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
I am a washington state resident. antitrust action against
mircosoft should cease because it is is the only comany that can
compete with time warner-aol which was allowed to go thru.
John Sturrock
2308 E 9th st
[[Page 25260]]
Vancouver, WA 98661
MTC-00010130
From: OSCAR WENTZEL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mr. Ashcroft,
I simply can't understand why the government continues to spend
thousands of dollars to get Bill Gates. This country is supposed to
be free enterprise. You work extra hard building a company, make a
lot of money and then you are penalized for being greedy. Let the
other software companies work as hard as Bill Gates has and they
will do just fine. Just because he has instituted smart business
practices, he shouldn't be penalized. If these other companies had a
better product, they would be in the driver's seats.
Tough luck if they aren't as smart as Gates. Stop wasting our
money. Thank you.
Mrs. Kathy Wentzel age 67
Bedford, Tx.
MTC-00010131
From: Scott Rarden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
I would like to respectfully give my comments on the settlement
process in the Microsoft monopoly decision.
Microsoft is trying to turn this decision from something that is
a punishment into something that is a gift. With as large as the
cash reserves of this company are, especially in these troubled
economic times, it would have no problem paying the complete fine in
cash. Instead it has offered to provide free software to the
educational system.
This accomplishes three things for Microsoft. The first is that
it, even if the product was only valued at cost rather than full
retail, allows the company to avoid the full cost of the settlement.
Given the choice between parting with cash or offering to provide
copies of something they have already produced--they would have to
be insane to pick the cash. The second thing is that it allows them
to grasp more of the education desktop market...the only remaining
desktop market that they do not have monopoly power in. This
settlement would `punish' their abuse of monopoly power by giving
them the opportunity to increase their monopoly. The third thing is
that it allows them to look noble for offering to `help' the poorer
schools in the nation--when it obviously is a cynical attempt to
avoid taking responsibility for breaking the law while at the same
time expanding the very power that led them to break the law in the
first place.
I plead with you to not approve the settlement plan that
Microsoft has offered. It would be against reason and justice, and
would only encourage them to maintain the same practices that they
have been found guilty of.
Thank you for your time, and the IT community awaits your
decision for good or ill.
MTC-00010132
From: Congdon, Brad
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02 8:52pm
Subject: Please accept the proposed settle in the Microsoft case
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Antitrust Division,
Please accept the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case
involving Microsoft.
I am a US citizen living in Washington State, and I work in the
high-tech industry (not at Microsoft). The opportunity to settle
this case with Microsoft is an opportunity to respect the rule of
law, to restore citizen's confidence in their justice system, and to
begin the process of allowing the high-tech sector of the US economy
to recover and prosper once again. In my view, there can be no valid
objection to this settlement because every major finding of the
Appeals Court is addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically
prohibits and prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the
proposed settlement will send a signal that the rule of law
prevails, not the rule of special interests; that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would be a serious blow to the smooth functioning of free
markets and the rule of law that protects them. For business to
thrive in America, it must know that our government uses its power
to enforce the law, not to randomly punish successful companies.
This settlement serves the best interests of American business
and the American public. It fairly resolves a burdensome anti-trust
case that is having severe impacts far beyond Microsoft, a case that
is acting as a drag on an entire sector of our economy. Settlement
of this case will free the high-technology industry to innovate and
create, and will spur competition in a way that will directly
benefit the entire economy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Brad Congdon
8242 61st Ave NE
Olympia, WA 98516
MTC-00010133
From: Bruce Truax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hon. Renata B. Hesse,
I am very disappointed in the Federal Government's remedy for
the Microsoft Antitrust suit. Although I am a conservative and I
normally do not like to see the government interfering in private
business, this is one case where I think intervention is justified
and necessary. I am a long time Apple Macintosh user and as the
world slowly migrates to almost 100% Microsoft I find that I have
less choice with regards to software and hardware options for my
computer. Much of the problem is related to the method which
Microsoft has used to increase the integration of their software. I
must admit that this increased integration has improved the ease of
use and functionality of the personal computer for users of Windows
but the method by which this is done slowly but steadily forces
competitors out of the market. From my vantage point it appears that
when Microsoft wants to add functionality to their operating system
they tend to chose a proprietary solution rather than an already
existing standard. This has happened numerous times with Java as a
prime example. As these functions become proprietary, users of other
operating systems suffer. For example, there are now numerous web
sites which cannot be viewed by users of Linux or Macintosh
computers because the site designer has chosen a Microsoft
Proprietary technology for certain web site functions. As it becomes
more difficult for other operating systems to obtain access to
internet content, hardware and software, even the last few holdouts
will be forced to migrate to Microsoft windows until they have 100%
of the market.
An additional problem is related to the security of our internet
infrastructure. As the operating systems on the internet become more
homogenous, the opportunity for a well written, malicious virus to
seriously affect the infrastructure of he internet is increasing. A
more diverse population of computers and operating systems on the
internet would make it less vulnerable to malicious attack.
Although I do not know what the proper remedy is for this
problem, it is obvious to me that the Federal settlement is not
sufficient.
Sincerely,
Bruce E. Truax
Optical Engineering Consultant
Diffraction Limited Design LLC
388 Wedgewood Road
Southington, CT 06489
http://www.dld-llc.com
email: [email protected]
voice: 860-276-0450
fax: 860-620-9026
MTC-00010134
From: Bonnie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:55pm
Subject: Justice?
Stop persecuting success! We need many, many more people like
Bill Gates. Please stop taking away the incentive for people to work
hard and succeed. The government's interfering with Microsoft has
not helped the people, Microsoft or the government. Microsoft has
been doing a fantastic job for its customers. Stop trying to ``fix
it'' when in fact you are really trying to break it.
Sincerely,
Bonnie J. Brown
1503 Reaves St.
West Plains, MO 65775
MTC-00010135
From: Ingrid Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly:
I am writing to ask you to overturn the Proposed Final Judgment
which, I believe is the term for the current settlement in the
Microsoft case. Though not a lawyer or a computer expert, it seems
to me that the anti-trust laws of our country have been violated,
[[Page 25261]]
and yet no significant penalty has been given nor future deterrent
set in place. As a home-schooling mother, I have studied along with
the children, the emergence of the anti-trust laws in our nation,
and see them as important safeguards of the freedom of enterprise
and opportunity that we are blessed with as Americans. At this point
in history, the smaller software and computer companies need the
protection of these already established laws. I am hoping you will
overturn the settlement and break up the Microsoft monopoly.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Ingrid A. Hill
Brighton, MA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010136
From: Price Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get this suit settled without further delay and
litigation, if possible! From the beginning I have been against the
government's suit against Microsoft. It is a sad commentary that a
successful business in this country has to defend itself against our
own government, in addition to meeting the competition. It is also
insane! There are plenty of greedy lawyers out here to file suit to
``protect us consumers'', if there is any reason-- check the number
of rich lawyers resulting from ``Class Action Law Suits'' that got
the ``consumers'' little or nothing, and quite often put a company
out of business.
The Justice Department suit has hurt me, a consumer, not helped
me. The suit has hurt me, an investor, not helped me! The suit has
hurt me, a taxpayer, not helped me! And, the suit has hurt me, a
voter, not helped me. The suit has hurt employees, not just of
Microsoft, but many other companies as well. The suit had the
unexpected result that it hurt the competitors who were pushing for
the government to sue. (I wouldn't feel bad about that, except it
also hurt our entire economy!).
I am really mad that we consumers/investors/taxpayers/voters/
employees/competitors, who have been hurt, also have to pay the bill
for all this litigation. As usual, it is only the lawyers/law firms
(and maybe some politicians) that benefit.
Those who thought this suit was a good idea to start with, and
those that want to continue the ligation probably think they are
very smart. I think they prove themselves either greedy, or
ingnorant-- maybe both!
By all means, SETTLE!
Price Rose
Route 2, Box 1758,
Eastland, TX 76448
(254) 647-1473
[email protected]
CC:acu--list@capwiz.mailmanager.net@inetgw,ADF,david--k...
MTC-00010137
From: Rosanne Coxe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to tell you that I support the Bush Administration
and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. It has gone on
way too long, isn't legitimate anyway, and is diverting Federal
funds and wasting time as well as harming the technology market and
consumers as well.
Sincerely,
Rosanne Partee
California
MTC-00010138
From: jerome kavaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:38pm
Subject: The Micro-Soft litagation.
Nuf Already;
I support the President and Micro Softs desire to end this
Lawsuit As a conservative taxpayer I want it ended.
Jerome Kavaney
MTC-00010139
From: Thomas Weir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:41pm
Subject: tunney act
Please support the Tunney Act. Nobody but the last
administration wanted to sue Microsoft, the average person could
care less. Out economy started going down hill when Microsoft was
sued.!!
Thomas Weir
[email protected]
MTC-00010140
From: Barbara Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Enough is enough! I support the Bush administration & Microsoft
in finally settling the ridiculous claims that have been put upon
Bill Gates. What a waste of taxpayers money, to go after a law
abiding, charity giving, altruistic, all American success story, who
has EARNED every dollar he has made & given away.
Since when do we live in a country where entreprenuarship is
punished?
Let's call the competitors ``cry babies'' & move on to the
Federal Courts spending their time & money on someone or something
that is truly harmful (rather than helpful) to this country!
MTC-00010141
From: Sara Scheele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to state that I wholeheartedly support the Bush
Administration' efforts, along with Microsoft's efforts, to go ahead
and settle this long-stretched out, expensive court case. Let's stop
spending anymore of the taxpayers' (my) money, and settle this! The
very people that are supposed to be protected by this case are now
the ones being hurt due to the falling markets and bad press re.
Microsoft. Thanks.
Sara Scheele
MTC-00010142
From: gary miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Dept of Justice:
Even though I am a Microsoft shareholder, I would like to
express my alarm at the weakness of the proposed antitrust
settlement the Dept of Justice has reached with Microsoft. The
proposed settlement does nothing to prevent further monopolistic
practices by Microsoft, has a glaring gap that will allow Microsoft
to deny access to Windows APIs to open source software developers
(e.g., Linux), and does nothing to curb monopolistic expansion into
newer technologies by Microsoft, just as it did in the browser
marketplace.
Microsoft's continued march to subsume new technologies (instant
messaging, media players, e-commerce, etc) into Windows XP, its
retention of the right to revert all OEM alternative desktop
settings to Microsoft's own 14 days after purchase, and its
continued refusal to admit any past misbehavior whatsoever all
demonstrate that much stronger remedies are needed, and sooner
rather than later.
I am particularly concerned over the provision in the federal
government's settlement agreement that requires Microsoft to divulge
Windows APIs only to competitors that Microsoft determines have a
``valid business plan''. Whether intended or not, one effect of this
provision is to handicap the ``open source'' movement in ever
inventing a rival technology that could work well enough with
Windows to threaten Microsoft's own monopoly. Open source has
hatched such technologies as the Linux OS and the latest
incarnations of Netscape. Yet in their earliest stages, open source
technologies rarely have a profitable business plan, so the
settlement would not require Microsoft to share the APIs that would
tell them how to make their applications run to best advantage on a
Windows machine. Small wonder future Netscapes will appear clumsier
than Explorer. Without API disclosure, Microsoft's technologies,
whether inferior or not, come out of the gate with a prejudicial
ability to integrate more smoothly with the Windows OS, and users
will be discouraged from even trying alternative technologies. This
element in the federal settlement nips any open source future rival
in the bud.
At the very minimum, a settlement should require that:
(1) Microsoft sell an ``unbundled'' or bare-bones version of
Windows, without bundled applications not essential to the operation
of the computer, as requested by the nine states' attorneys general
in their ongoing settlement hearing;
(2) Microsoft reveal ALL Windows API so that competing
developers can interact with the operation system efficiently, so
that third parties could write an analog to, for example, the
Passport technology that could work as well with Windows as
Microsoft's version;
(3) Internet Explorer source code should be made public;
(4) Barring (3), Internet Explorer should conform to public
standards in HTML, XML, Java, etc. Currently Microsoft has attempted
to effectively proprietize public standards by incorporating its own
nonstandard extension of them into the Windows OS and Internet
Explorer, in effect mandating use of Internet Explorer to, e.g.,
decipher Microsoft nonstandard Java pages on the Web. If
[[Page 25262]]
Microsoft wishes to add its own extensions to public standards, it
should do so as a browser plug-in only, and its extensions should
also be provided as a plug-in for Netscape and other browsers as
well, or else published.
Even though I personally own Microsoft stock, I personally find
Microsoft's past behavior so egregious--and so much unchanged even
after the upheld findings of monopoly practices--that I am ashamed.
I hope you will join the other state attorneys general in pursuing
substantial damages, and, especially, injunctions NOW against any
future such behavior by Microsoft. Surely without suitable
injunctions, while the settlement process drags on, Microsoft will
only further entrench its current monopoly.
I only regret that Microsoft carries such influence in my own
state (Washington) that my own attorney general has not joined the
other states' case.
Sincerely,
Gary Miller
1707 W 9th Ave
Spokane WA 99204
PS. I would normally write a ``real'' letter in hopes of
carrying more weight, but understand that public safety concerns
make email more reliable.
``The greatest obstacle to communication is the presumption it
has already occurred.''
MTC-00010143
From: Bernard R. Blais MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:42pm
Subject: microsoft Settlement
I strongly recommend that the settlement be accepted. To much
time and money has been spent in this legal battle which was not in
the best interest of the public.
Dr Bernard R Blais
MTC-00010144
From: Jason Rainbows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hess,
Please reconsider the Microsoft settlement. I believe that the
current settlement is actually IN FAVOR of Microsoft, and will
encourage that company to continue their monopolistic practices by
handing them yet another market niche held by their competitors and
it will irreversibly affect the education industry and other
computer software developers.
It will cost Microsoft a small percent of the settlement figure
to supply their second-rate products to schools. And then, in six
months the schools will have to PAY for the upgrades from Microsoft,
and again every time a new upgrade is developed. It's money in the
bank for them, to coin a phrase.
This will place a huge monetary burden on our already destitute
education industry. Not to mention the millions that schools will
have to pay for support and repairs--a staple of all Microsoft
programs. And it will essentially take away a market niche just
barely held onto by their competitors due to Microsoft's brutal
competitive habits.
Microsoft develops poorly written programs that are easy for ANY
12 year old computer user to hack into, and cause trouble in the
form of Virus, Worms, Trojan Horses, etc. The Windows program is the
most bug filled, virus infected program ever written. Costs to avoid
or fix these problems will cost schools millions, and force our
children to use software that simply doesn't do what it is made for,
even in its most ideal configurations. The only ones to benefit from
this is Microsoft. This trial has been used by Microsoft's lawyers
to further its monopolistic positions. I don't know how they managed
to turn this into their reward, but it seems that they've done it.
If this settlement is allowed to happen in its current form, there
will be no stopping Microsoft's monopoly and it will actually
encourage their ominous business practices in the future.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Jason Rainbows
jasonrainbows@mind spring.com
http://www.mind spring.com/jasonrainbows
``littera scripta manet--non omnis moriar''
MTC-00010145
From: karsten koepcke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This was a complete sell out. How could let them get away with
their blatantly illegal behavior. Any you wonder why the people are
cynical
Karsten Koepcke
MTC-00010146
From: trish murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:55pm
Subject: Dear Judge,
Dear Judge,
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft to settle this
case as soon as possible; it is in publics' best interest as we will
be far better served by settlement than ongoing litgation at a much
higher cost. The consumer is always the one who suffers and in this
case it is a double whammy; we must pay through taxes for the
governments work then we pay more for the product because the
company passes the cost on to the consumer by raising their prices
to cover the litgation and it discourages other business ventures
because they don't want the risk, maybe that's a triple whammy.
Please settle it. Thank you.
Tricia Murray
MTC-00010147
From: Carole Staebler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire
to settle this lawsuit.
Howard & Carole Staebler
915 Park Rim Cir.
Anaheim, CA 92807
MTC-00010148
From: Frances Ellison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sir:
I support President Bush and Microsoft in their desire to settle
this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Fran Ellison
178 Palisades Dr
Four Seasons, Mo 65049
MTC-00010149
From: Craig Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:28pm
Subject: Accept Ruling
As a Washington State citizen and as a small business owner I
request that you accept the ruling on the Microsoft case. This case
has done irreparable harm to our economy both here in Washington and
nation wide. The anti trust attack upon this innovative industry and
against this innovative company is inappropriate. The target is
moving so fast in the technology sector that old views and
perspectives regarding antitrust do not apply.
Please accept this ruling compromise so that we as a state and a
nation can get back to business.
Thank you,
Craig Riley
MTC-00010150
From: Leonard (038) Agnes Tillerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
This is to inform you that we are in total agreement with the
settlement reached regarding the Microsoft litigation.In our
opinion, this litigation should have never occurred! Our economy has
suffered as a result of this litigation and our technology market
has been negatively impacted. In addition to the latter, we, the
taxpayers have had to fund this prosecution diverting funds from
investigating truly harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate
monopolies. We ask and plead that the Federal District Court
determine that the proposed settlement is in our, the public's, best
interest.We applaud and support the Bush Administration and
Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
We respectfully request that you consider our remarks when
making a final decision on this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Agnes and Leonard Tillerson
244 Osprey Circle
St. Marys, Ga. 31558
MTC-00010151
From: John Olthoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft
I feel that I should have some voice. I think that the
settlement with Microsoft is useless and needs to be much stricter.
In some ways, as it is, it actually benefits the company.
The company itself should be broken up and have restrictions
placed on its monopoly. They inhibit progress and competition in
technology.
MTC-00010152
From: Anne Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25263]]
Date: 1/10/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
Please get the foot of government off the neck of private business
so they can focus on moving this economy forward.
Thank you,
Anne Ball
MTC-00010153
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:38pm
Subject: Bill Gates
I don't fully understand why the antitrust suit was served to
begin with. I've worked with computers for 20 years. Bill Gates is
just a genius. Just because he and his company can create the BEST
systems and software in the world, does not mean he has to be
punished. I agree that it would help competition for software if the
Windows Operating System was not limited to what can run on it.
Also, I agree that he should not have ``forced'' those outside
entities to only do business with Microsoft products. However, I
have seen what running different software packages on a Windows OS
can do to the system. It can limit functionability of the entire
system and can cause system errors and shutdowns. I believe some
changes need to be made in the market, but putting all the blame on
Bill Gates for being the genius he is is not the answer.
Thank you,
Sheryl Bishop
Louisiana
MTC-00010154
From: Jan Marler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to take a moment to express my support for the settlement
reached in November between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I
believe this settlement is in the public interest and will allow
everyone to move forward. In my opinion, this case should have never
been started in the first place. But since that is water under the
bridge, this settlement is the best result that can occur at this
time. It requires significant changes and concessions from
Microsoft, including changes in how the company designs future
versions of its Windows operating system. And an oversight committee
will be formed to assure compliance. Microsoft has been a good
company for personal consumers like myself who have used their
products for years. After this entire affair is finally completed,
Microsoft will be able to focus all their resources to producing the
products that consumers and businesses have come to expect for
years. Thank you for this opportunity to give my opinion and I hope
that no further action will be taken at the federal level on this
matter.
Sincerely,
Jan Nolte Marler
[email protected]
2806 Hogan Lane
Crestview, Florida 32539
cc: Representative Joe Scarborough
MTC-00010155
From: John Malin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
It's time to stop penalizing commercial success. The government
has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of consumers; however,
the very consumers it has sought to protect are being harmed by the
detrimental impact the case has had on the technology market and the
entire national economy.
Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies. The proposed
settlement encourages consumer product-choice, promotes product
innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related computer and software
manufacturers with confidence in marketing their own products. It
also frees up Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust
violations that currently harm the public. Some of the State
Attorneys General want to continue this litigation: Don't let them!
Let the case be settled as proposed and accepted by 9 of the 18
State Attorneys General. I chose to only use some of the Microsoft
products available plus products by other manufacturers and did it
all with out a court hearing or judgement. I'm sure there are more
pressing things to be handled by the court system, especially since
we have so many vacancies on the Federal Benches.
Sincerely,
John Malin
2242 Arabian Ln
York, SC 29745
803-684-9909
[email protected]
MTC-00010156
From: Frank J. Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:59pm
Accept this settlement and let this great corporation get back
to what they do best.
Frank Martin
Allentown, PA
MTC-00010157
From: George von Wurmb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I like to state that I support the proposed settlement.It is
time to settle this and move on.
George von Wurmb,
Tampa
MTC-00010158
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
All companys should have the FREEDOM TO INNOVATE. And that
includes Microsoft. I really appreciate innovation regardless of who
has the intelligence or the ability to do it.
Karen E. Small.
[email protected]
MTC-00010159
From: Bob McDermott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please get the government off Microsoft's back, & go catch the
terrorists instead
MTC-00010160
From: Jacob J Barkman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings from Elkhart, Kansas. We are much in Prayer for you
DAILY, that you will continually know how to deal with the multitude
of decisions that continually come before you.
Regarding the Microsoft Settlement issue, I support the current
proposed settlement of the consumer product choice that promotes
product innovation.
May you and your staff have the Wisdom, Discernment, and Insight
to make the best, ultimate decision.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Barkman
P. O. Box 193
Elkhart, Kansas 67950
MTC-00010161
From: Bruce Molay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge for Microsoft Case
From: Bruce Molay, US Citizen
Re: Regarding Microsoft Settlement/Case
My Background: I am writing as a user of computer systems, a
professional programmer, and an instructor in computer science. I
began writing computer programs in 1968, I began writing programs
professionally in 1983, and have been teaching computer science
since 1976. I have seen the changes in computer technology and in
the computer industry for three decades. I have also experienced
firsthand Microsoft's deceptive business practices.
Regarding a Settlement: Microsoft walked all over the intention
of the earlier consent decree, Microsoft has stomped on competitors
and stabbed `partners' in the back. Evidence at the trial showed
many times a blatant disregard for truth. The doctored video tape
had to be a form of perjury. Given the company's history, there is
reason to believe Microsoft would ever follow the terms of another
agreement.
In fact, as professional coders, they would take as a challenge
the project of figuring out a clever way to work within the letter
of the agreement while utterly violating the spirit of the
agreement. Clever programmers take binary codes designed to do one
thing and play with the rules to get computers to do something else.
Legal agreements are just another game for Bill Gates to hack.
[[Page 25264]]
Finally, a settlement saves the company from having to accept or
admit guilt. A settlement ignores the fact that a federal judge and
the appeals court were unanimous, in detailed, unambiguous, direct
rulings, about the clear violations of anti-trust law. A settlement
allows Microsoft to pretend it was all a misunderstanding, something
that can be settled amicably between parties trying to compromise.
Convicted Criminals Deserve Punishment: Microsoft has
demonstrably damaged competition and free enterprise. Microsoft has
benefitted enormously from lack of competition. In short, they
killed the competition and stole money from consumers. Even if they
promise never to kill competition and never to steal again, they
ought not to keep of their ill-gotten gains.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if a bank robber is
convicted of a robbery, and then promises to stop robbing banks, and
gets no jail time, we at least expect him to give the money back. Or
maybe pay out as a fine.
Convicted Criminals and Weapons: I think we require background
checks when people try to buy guns. People convicted of using guns
to hurt people and property should not be trusted to carry them
around, or at least deserve some real supervision.
Microsoft used their desktop monopoly and their proprietary file
formats and APIs to prevent and destroy competition in many areas.
As we speak, they are adding APIs and changing file formats and
using the desktop monopoly to attack Real Networks, Kodak, and even
universal email protocols that make the Internet so useful to
millions. Microsoft still possesses these weapons and is still using
them.
Take away their weapons. Force MS to publish all file formats
and windows APIs. They do not have to publish their source code;
most of us in the industry do not want to look at Microsoft's `crown
jewels', there is too large a risk of intellectual property
lawsuits. Impose hefty fines and the threat of a break up if they
violate the rules. Arrange to pay bounties to people who find
undocumented or incorrectly formats and APIs. Pay those bounties,
upon review by a truly independent board, directly from MS to that
coder. Doing so will make MS think twice about the cost of each
violation. Doing so will create a staff of highly skilled
inspectors, something the federal government can ill afford to fund
in these economic times. Offering rewards for information about a
crime is has a long tradition in our legal system.
Summary: No Settlement They have broken laws, hurt people,
businesses, and stayed the invisible hand of the market. Fine them,
don't trust them, and please take away their guns.
MTC-00010162
From: Frank Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:06pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
I think the agreement that the Department of Justice, several
states, and Microsoft is in the public interest and that the matter
should be settled.
Frank Martin
P.O. Box 8586
Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657
830-598-6823
MTC-00010163
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:26pm
Subject: OBJECTION TO THE PERSECUTION OF BILL GATES
DROP THE PERSECUTION NOW.
MTC-00010164
From: Shawn Jarrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe key aspects of the government's case are wrong.
In my opinion Microsoft does not hold an ``illegal'' monopoly
over desktop operating systems. That ignores the resurgent of Apple
Macintosh and the emergence of powerful Unix-based competitors, like
Linux. Consumers can purchase any operating system they want, but
they choose Microsoft because it is a better product.
There is no evidence of consumer harm and none was provide in
the trial and Microsoft, according to the law, is not a Monopoly.
Instead we, the consumer, had a judge that made up laws as he
pleased.
After reading into the definition of a Monopoly, this is my
understanding what it is: A monopoly is a firm that's restricts
output in order to raise profits and prices, which harm consumers.
Microsoft stands accused of doing the exact opposite; it lowers its
price to zero and tries to expand its market.
The more one knows about this industry, the more one will
realize it was the disgruntled competitors bringing the charge that
Microsoft is a monopoly.
All this, is a legal sideshow. Sun, IBM, AOL, and Oracle are
touting it as the central issue, but they don't give a damn about
the consumers. With Windows 2000/XP Microsoft is invading their turf
on the corporate side with better products at lower prices. They
want the government to make the software design decisions for
Microsoft, knowing that will stop Microsoft from innovating. This
will be bad for consumers, the economy and the national security if
we fall behind in computer technology due to government meddling.
There is no possible way any action against Microsoft by the
Justice Department and more importantly the unsettled states will
help consumers. The competition and innovation in the computer and
software industries are the most intense in the history of the
world.
Overall, the message being sent by the trial is ``If you are a
dominant producer in your market, be careful how aggressively you
compete. Be mindful that your rivals can haul you into court if your
product is better than theirs''.
To be perfectly clear, the DOJ and the Attorney Generals of the
suing states do not represent my interest and the interest of
millions of consumers who have and will continue to benefit from
Microsoft products.
Sincerely from a concerned consumer,
T. Shawn Jarrett
704-393-9828
[email protected]
MTC-00010165
From: Mino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:40pm
Subject: Law Suits Against Microsoft:
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
The Department of Justice, Microsoft and nine of eighteen states
have reached an agreement that will stop wasting taxpayers' money on
the decade-long competitor-driven persecution of Microsoft. The
government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of consumers;
however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are being
harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the technology
market and the entire national economy.
Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies.
The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice,
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.
Some of the State Attorneys General want to continue this
litigation:
Don't let them!
The Federal District Court must determine that the proposed
settlement is in the public's interest. Let the Court know that you
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to
settle this lawsuit.
Thank You for taking the time to read my email to you. May God
Almighty Bless You with Wisdom and Discernement in all that you deal
with as
Attorney General.
Sincerely Yours,
Ronald Shimono
Issaquah, WA 98027
MTC-00010166
From: Lucille Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire
to settle this lawsuit now.
Thank You
(Mrs.) Lucille C. Patrick
MTC-00010167
From: Eric Knirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
leave microsoft alone. go after eron, or better yet loral
aerospace for transfering protected technology to china.
MTC-00010168
From: Eric Knirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
[[Page 25265]]
leave microsoft alone. go after ERON or better yet LORAL for
transfering technology to to CHINA.
MTC-00010169
From: Carol Radford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Radford
PO Box 471
Blomington, CA 92316
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Carol Radford
MTC-00010170
From: Ron C Gunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My little company has been harmed by Microsoft, but I can only
imagine one entity that can make a worse mess of the delicate job of
providing software necessary for our best chance of technological
and social progress, and that is any of the arms of the U.S. Federal
Government.
Microsoft is by far the least harmful entity in this fight over
Governmental or Business control of this sensitive area, and
attempts to make this situation better through governmental control,
because of its dynamic nature, is doomed to the most dismal failure.
Ron Gunn;
Ron Gunn Enterprises;
358 Albatross Ave;
Livermore CA 94550
MTC-00010171
From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected],senator--leahy@le...
Date: 1/11/02 12:05am
Subject: Isn't this ``Extra Special'' ????
How much more are you going to allow/``Look-The-Other-Way''
before you deal with Microsoft like Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
correctly wanted to and order to split up of Microsoft ?? This
company continues to make a mockery of the Justice system and anti-
trust laws of this country!
Every time they get a chance, they're taking unfair advantage or
``Muscling'' some company or the Justice Department itself !!!
Prosecute these clowns and quit screwing around with them !!!
Microsoft failed to disclose meetings with lawmakers
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Microsoft communicated with members of
Congress and their aides about its antitrust case and did not
disclose the contacts to the trial judge who requested information
about the company's lobbying in the case. Microsoft said this week
it decided to disclose only contacts with executive branch officials
in the required court filings, following the example of AT&T when it
settled its landmark antitrust case in the 1980s.
The company reported to the court that its lone contacts with
federal employees included Justice lawyers and two federal mediators
hired to help assist settlement talks.
Legal experts, however, questioned whether the omission of
congressional contacts violated federal law.
``If you specifically talk about the proposed settlement, that
would seem to fall under the requirements of the plain language of
the statute,'' said lawyer Dana Hayter with the firm of Howard Rice
in San Francisco.
Both Microsoft and a congressional aide who witnessed the
contacts acknowledge Microsoft officials briefed aides of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on terms of the settlement just before a
December congressional hearing on the case.
The Tunney Act requires defendants in antitrust cases such as
Microsoft's to disclose ``any and all written or oral
communications'' with ``any officer or employee of the United
States'' related to the settlement.
In other cases not involving antitrust, judges have ruled that a
legislator or congressional staff member counts as a U.S. employee.
Before the law named after him was passed, former Sen. John
Tunney, D-Calif., said its requirements ``apply equally to contact
with any branch of government, including the Congress.''
In its twice-a-year reports to Congress on lobbying activities,
Microsoft reported spending $300,000 on lobbying in the first half
of 2001 related to the antitrust case.
Several aides of lawmakers acknowledged discussing the
settlement negotiations with Microsoft representatives.
An aide to Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., talked with Microsoft
officials in September, as settlement discussions renewed.
During the same month, Dunn organized over a hundred lawmakers
to sign a letter to the Justice Department and Microsoft Chief
Executive Officer Steve Ballmer urging a settlement.
The lawmaker's staff called company executives for advice about
appearing on a television show focusing on the case. ``We just had
to call Microsoft so we could understand better what the issue
was,'' spokeswoman Jen Burita said.
Also in September, after federal prosecutors decided to abandon
their effort to break Microsoft into two companies, Dunn talked to
Attorney General John Ashcroft and urged an ``expedient resolution
that will benefit consumers.''
Microsoft lobbyist Jack Quinn last year wrote to Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., seeking to
persuade him to scuttle the December hearing because the company was
concerned that they would ``promote the biases'' of Microsoft
competitors.
Legal experts said congressional contacts about the settlement
should have been mentioned in Microsoft's disclosure and that
Microsoft could risk its credibility by interpreting the law too
narrowly.
``Once a side loses credibility, then you start to question
everything they say,'' said Bob Lande, a law professor at the
University of Baltimore.
Lande said the trial judge could force Microsoft to resubmit its
disclosure if she doesn't believe it is complete.
Other experts said the law was designed to widely include
contacts so the public could best decide whether companies tried to
improperly exert influence to win an antitrust settlement.
``The reason to have the broad language is making sure the
disclosure errs on the side of inclusiveness,'' said Andy Gavil, an
antitrust expert at Howard University. ``It's for the court and the
public to decide whether there was improper influence, and not for
Microsoft.''
In its disclosure to the court, Microsoft acknowledged speaking
only with U.S. government lawyers, lawyers for the states suing the
company, and two court-appointed mediators.
Microsoft spokesman Vivek Varma said the company's disclosure
was modeled on AT&T's antitrust suit that resulted in a 1984 breakup
of the telephone giant.
``That filing was limited to communications with the executive
branch,'' Varma said.
The Justice Department and 18 states sued Microsoft four years
ago, alleging it violated antitrust laws and illegally thwarted
competition.
The original trial judge ruled Microsoft did, in fact, operate
as an illegal monopoly and should be broken into two companies as
punishment.
Microsoft appealed.
A federal appeals court upheld most of the findings but reversed
the breakup and ordered that a new judge impose a new penalty.
Microsoft late last year reached a settlement with the Justice
Department and nine of the states. Nine other states are proceeding
with the case and plan to go to trial on the penalty issue.
``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well
or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden,
[[Page 25266]]
meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe
to assure the survival and the success of liberty.''
....John Fitzgerald Kennedy--1/20/61
Dave Hill [email protected]> :-)
MTC-00010172
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:09am
Subject: microsoft
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
Mahlon and Doreen Wixson
PO Box 3098
Silverdale, WA 98383
MTC-00010173
From: Schmidt, Jeff
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 12:10am
Subject: Sentencing of Microsoft
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to make a few comments regarding the possible
sentence being brought about against Microsoft. This possible
sentence is letting Microsoft off with barely a slap on the wrist.
In doing so, you are sending a signal to Microsoft that monopolies
are fine as long as you're big enough. This is enabling them to keep
their strangle-hold on the computer users of the world and stifling
the competition in the computer operating system market. This lack
of competition has yeilded low quality, over prices products on the
part of Microsoft. Their Windows operating system has deteriorated
over the years to being a poorly ``slapped together'' product.
The number of security leaks has increased dramatically. This is
making the lives of people more vulnerable to criminals. How are we
to feel safe shopping online. What about our personal information,
and the safety of our families. I don't know who may be seeing my
personal information. I don't know who may be talking to my family
members. All of this is because of Microsoft's ``get it out there,
and we'll fix the problems when they arise'' attitude. And where
does this attitude come from? From the fact that they know that they
don't have to worry about the competition of other operating
systems. I realize that Linux has grasped a decent, although still
less respectable, peice of the server market, but that still doesn't
cover the home user and their information. If Microsoft is let off
with a light sentence, they will continue to release poorly put
together, unsecure operating systems. And because of their current
market share, they are able to drag the public down any road, safe
or unsafe, they want. Please, do not let Microsoft continue to be
incontrol of the lives of computer users. They seem to have proven
they are not trust worthy to make a quality, secure product. Thank
you.
Jeff Schmidt
Former Windows user, recently switched to Linux.
MTC-00010174
From: Vincent Adeszko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to stop wasting taxpayer money and inhibiting
successful entrepreneurs. If it wasn't for Microsoft, I and
thousands of others would still be frightened of computers. When
will the government and the courts recognize the huge benefits to
worker productivity and consumer satisfaction that Microsoft has
given to the world and to its stockholders. It has been one of the
best, if not the best, innovator in technology. Settle these
ridiculous lawsuits and allow business to continue to expand worker
opportunities in this country and all over the world.
Vincent Adeszko
144 Canyon RIm Drive
Folsom, CA 95630
MTC-00010175
From: Jim Kneuper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:41am
Subject: Concerned Linux user
Hello! I'm writing to you because I believe the proposed
settlement is a slap on the wrist for Microsoft and a kick in the
face to everyone else. Even now, they are still doing the things
there were dragged into court for. Notice MSN Messanger in Windows
XP? Or the Passport buggings?
I use Linux as my primary operating system. I actually do have a
small (3 gigs of a 60 gig hard drive) Windows partition for the game
EverQuest, which refuses to support Linux. That's the only
problem... no companies have any compelling reason to support any
operating system other than Windows. Untill support comes around,
nobody is going to move to Linux or any other operating system.
Microsoft is doing everything it can to stop that. Take for
instance the lack of Java support in Windows XP. They want web pages
to use their own language, ``ActiveX'', because they are the only
ones who are able to write support for it. No browser can
interperate ActiveX other than Internet Explorer. And Internet
Explorer only happends on Windows (and maybe Mac, not sure). If web
pages want to work with Windows XP, they have no choice but to break
compatibility with other OSs.
Microsoft has contenued to show that it cannot be trusted, again
and again. It gives this great nation a bad name, and that is the
truly sad part. Please, do not let the war on Terrorism be
Microsoft's ``get out of jail free'' card... because, arguably, the
war on Terrorism should include Microsoft.
Thank you for your time
Jim Kneuper
[[Page 25267]]
MTC-00010176
From: Charlie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:20am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
It is time to settle this thing once and for all. I think the
taxpayer has spent enough on this somewhat frivolous lawsuit.
Everyone has been kept in suspense long enough, and it is not good
for the country at this point in time.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Powers
Cape Girardeau, Mo 63703
[email protected].
MTC-00010177
From: Dave Winchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I believe Microsoft has been persecuted enough by the anti-trust
prosecution of recent years. The settlement agreement reached by
Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice, and 9 of the 18 states
participating on the suit seems to be in the public interest, and
should be approved by the court. The prosecution of Microsoft was
driven by competitors envious of Microsoft's commercial success, and
by overzealous U.S. attorneys. It has been a waste of taxpayers'
money and has diverted DOJ resources away from other important
issues. The case should be closed to stop the waste of public and
commercial money and resources. The nine participating states that
have not yet agreed to the settlement should not be allowed to
impede the settlement and thus perpetuate the wasteful activity to
the detriment of Microsoft's continuing commercial achievements and
the public good. Please pass my support of the proposed settlement
of the lawsuit to the court for its consideration.
Very truly yours,
David G. Winchell
8871 W. Etcheverry Drive
Tracy, California 95304
MTC-00010178
From: John Bowen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:42am
Subject: Bunch of Crooks
This has gone far enough! This is nothing but a bunch of Pirates
who knew about computers before the government did and used their
advantage to take the money and stifle software development!
They sell buggy software and provide no refund if it will not
work and no customer service! I have their Millennium Edition and it
has never worked. I'm sure I could spend about 20 hours and get it
to work but why should I have to work on something I bought on good
faith that it would work. If you want to understand how this company
operates Look into Millennium edition. They put this OS out just for
a payday to keep the stock from crashing and to hell with whoever
bought it!!!!
MTC-00010179
From: Paul Geohegan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlemet
Enough already!
MTC-00010180
From: Stephen Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
I am writing to express my opinion that the proposed federal
penalties against the Microsoft corporation are too lenient and set
a bad precedent.
I find it incredible that the court, the prosecution, and the
guilty party must negotiate as equals to define a settlement
agreeable to all parties in this case. Microsoft was found guilty of
breaking an important law. They have significantly hurt millions of
Americans. How many other guilty parties get to negotiate their
punishment? It sure seems like Microsoft is not being treated
equally under the law. Some aspects of the penalty are not penalties
at all. Forcing Microsoft to buy software and computers for schools
gives them an advantage in the educational market, where competitors
(e.g., Apple Computer and the suppliers of compatible software) have
long had a substantial fraction of the market. The one market where
Microsoft has faced significant competition is being made less
competitive. Is this a penalty for anti-competitive behavior?
Microsoft has a well-earned reputation for lying, including
orchestrating public support for its products in dishonest ways. A
ZDNET pole over Christmas is only the most recent example. http://
news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html Microsoft
consistently engages in questionable behavior and is not entitled to
leniency on the ground of any honorable track record. If they are
not punished, we will have to endure years more of the same or
worse. The worst they have to fear is another long trial, with minor
penalties even if they are found guilty!
Stephen C. Langford
160 NW Stadium Way, Apt. 4
Pullman, WA 99163-2461
Phone: (509) 332-5844
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00010181
From: Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:14am
Subject: microsoftsettlement
please support the settlement for the sake of all concerned
MTC-00010183
From: Bradley Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle it and get off the stick
B. L. Curtis
MTC-00010184
From: Tom and Karin Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Here we are dealing with a recession that started in 2000, and
the government tortures a company that has created industry, jobs,
wealth, and progress. And they have done it because they have good
ideas and know how to make them into products. Now does it make any
sense at all to punish them for being successful? Stop wasting our
time and money on this vendetta and end this case. Do not fall
victim to the anti-business forces that drag success to the ground.
Tom and Karin Thomas
12711 Via Perfecto
San Antonio, TX 78233
(210)655-6855
MTC-00010185
From: Diane Kirk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Kirk
2350 Pinon Rd.
Rescue, CA 95672-9651
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Diane Kirk
MTC-00010186
From: Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:09am
Subject: Why should MS get a slap on the wrist???
Thank you for reading this.
Please do not let MS off the hook, we need to force them to
better their product by promoting competition. The have an unfair
and in my opinion an illegal monopoly.
Wasn't the phone company dismantled because of unfair business
practice due to it's monopoly? Of course it was.
The other thing that has really changed my views on MS was when
I purchased WinXP... I had some trouble installing this software to
[[Page 25268]]
``MY'' satisfaction. I did not realize that each time I installed
the software (which I paid for) I had to send off to MS an
electronic registration with an electronic profile of ``MY''
machine. Well fine I did it (reluctantly), but what else am I going
to use... So I install this OS, and registerd it 3 times. I was
still unhappy with something about the install, and after much work
decided I would erase my system one last time, and reinstall this
OS. So after I am done I try to register to Mr. Bill, and I get a
message telling me that the software I paid for has been installed
too many times. To make a long story short, I had to call MS to ask
permission to use it and get a special code to activate something I
paid for!!! Keep in mind I had done the activation prior, but that
wasn't good enough.
Now correct my if I am out of line here, but if you bought
software... Do you think that you should have to ask the companies
permission, and further have to supply them with a reason as to why
I am installing it so many times? Didn't I buy it for my personal
use? It was from the same machine because they had my hard
profile...
Please sanction this company in a way that will make it hurt.
PLEASE!! don't give in to these thugs. They are no worse than the
Mafia.
Thank you,
Steve DeDominic
MTC-00010187
From: lscross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Justice Department: Stop wasting taxpayers' money on the
decade-long competitor-driven persecution of Microsoft.
This settlement is not in the public interest.
The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the
technology market and the entire national economy.
Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies.
The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice,
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public. Stop
this litigation!
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire
to settle this lawsuit.
Luci Cross
Olympia, WA 98513
MTC-00010188
From: Dave Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
In reading over the final settlement with Microsoft, maybe I am
not seeing something, but what I see allows for something that I
find happening to allow Microsoft to continue with an almost akin to
an absolute control of the internet. Ever since Microsoft lost their
battle in Court, they have been making some changes which tend to
further their path to discouraging people enough that they gain more
control and thereby a monopoly by a type of intimidation. I have
watched them in their influence over the net by any users who are
not using their products when on the web. An example of this is that
every site they own or control or every company or OEM with which
they have some previous agreement can't be simply accessed by one
who is not using their product. I see nothing in the final judgement
which prohibits them from intimidation by making it almost
impossible for anyone who does not use their IE to easily access
mail or sites. Since there is not and since they have acquired more
online, they have now been able to exercise much more in the way of
'convincing' people to use only them. This effectively shuts out
most of the stipulations of the final judgement. The giving up of
fighting with a system which is so restrictive and demanding without
violating any of the provisions of the judgement will merely cause
the individuals to chose to not fight it and add much more to a
total control monopoly on the internet.
One only has to understand that the Microsoft Windows OS is the
one in use in the majority of all OS systems used in the world to
realize that the internet is being used to force a control so that a
true free choice is not given to the individual users. The
complaints which caused this suit were not from individual users.
They were from competitors in the business. No where is the issue
addressed which prevents Microsoft from using the widespread use of
their OS along with their own internet sites and agreements with
others to cause considerable pressure to continue with a forced
monopoly. With what I see in the judgement, even more a path is
allowed for them to continue to accomplish an almost total internet
controled monopoly with their OS and products.
The users of an Operating System do not always run out and pay
such an expense just to buy new systems when they are introduced.
Many will continue to use what they have until they find a real need
due to some obsolecesence. With all the Windows programs since
Windows 95 to date, there is no way to avoid the requirement of
wasting space on the system by keeping the Microsoft Internet
Explorer (IE). It must be in the system and will always be doing
something itself and including popping up at times when you are not
wanting to use it.
In any site owned, controlled or where there exists an agreement
for the use of their products, a user of any other system or browser
has difficulty in accessing the site. In mail that is sent which has
been set up by Microsoft for many companies, that mail may not even
open in any browser other than IE. I have had many such examples
here recently which did not exist before your suit. This would tend
to indicate a path Microsoft has found to allow for a continuation
of what the suit was charging, only from a different perspective;
the use.
Where I prefer the Windows system, I do not prefer all that
Microsoft has for use and see no need to have it waste space on my
hard drive when I have other products which I would chose to use. I
do not think that Microsoft should be allowed to have the type of
control worldwide they have over the internet to force this
situation and I do not think that they should be allowed to provide
their IE as a component of the Windows OS. This should be kept out
of the system and a user then has the free choice of which they wish
to download or purchase and use. Any online company or site, network
or ISP should be additionally required to fully support any of the
available browser systems available to the individual user by the
choice of the user.
Take a look back at how the Windows sysetem was prior to Windows
95. You will find a system which did allow free choice. The IE could
be used or eliminated at the discretion of the user. Now, the
Windows Operating System is so embedded with instructions and
directions so as to disallow any free choice in any product which
Microsoft owns or controls. You must keep all of theirs and then
have to fight with sites and anything which on the web is under the
direction, control or ownership of Microsoft if you are not using
their products. It has become common now for people to even state
that if you aren't using IE or Microsoft that you aren't going to be
able to enter the site, gain access to some mail or view anything
produced on the internet by Microsoft. This is quite a bad sign.
I know that is is rather a far fetched idea, but I feel the urge
to remind all of a movie that was shown on television a couple years
back and can now be found in video stores. It is fiction. It isn't
real. But, I see a tremendous similarity to it and what I see
happening now. A bit more advanced and overboard situation in the
movie, but is it? ``Net Force'' Watch it and you be the judge.
Sincerely,
Dave Jacobs
MTC-00010189
From: bill mccauley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:12am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I Thought the feds covered interstate commerce.
tell them money grubing states to back off
Bill McCauley
Plano, Texas
MTC-00010190
From: Ira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a user of the Windows Operating System I want to support
Microsoft(MS) for the products they have developed. I have no
interest in the marketing aspects or the policies of any company but
rather the benefits of the software. If politicians who are not even
aware of the real benefits of the software are allowed to continue
to disrupt the development of such software future development will
cease. How can people who are not technically aware of the real
[[Page 25269]]
technical problems that are involved in development be allowed to
decide to dictate the future of the industry. The government
``Experts'' are bureaucrats with a vested interest in controlling
private industry and not really capable of making true technical
contributions to software products. Why don't the courts look to
individuals like myself--not employees of MS or the government but
users of the products. The industry would not have grown and
flourished if not for MS so stop trying to stifle it.
[email protected] ``Your living proof that God works in strange
and wondrous ways'' SuzieQ,Little Bit and Ira
MTC-00010191
From: Wayne Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 10, 2002 Attorney General John
Ashcroft 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I would like to take a moment to give my views on the settlement
reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department in November. At
this point, the settlement agreement is the best development and
would be good for all litigants and consumers in general.
I, like countless others, have Microsoft stock as a significant
part of my retirement savings. The impact of the suit on me
personally has been dramatic. The impact on the entire economy is
noteworthy, too. In fact, I think one can trace the Clinton
recession almost directly to the date of the original judgment.
Despite my belief that this whole case should have never been
brought in the first place, I understand Microsoft's desire to wrap
this suit up. Now I am hoping that with the federal government's
lead and continued support for the settlement, the states that have
not joined the settlement (such as Minnesota) will reconsider their
position. It would be extremely important for all this legal
uncertainty to be put to rest for good. The settlement justly leaves
Microsoft intact, while obligating the company to change its
anticompetitive practices of software bundling and the way it
licensed Windows.
I commend your office and the entire administration on the push
to settle this case. It is good for the economy and for the
government, who can now utilize scarce resources to programs that
are more important in our current political environment.
Sincerely,
Wayne Petersen
MTC-00010192
From: bernita colthorp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:01am
Subject: Litigation with microsoft.
Sirs:
It is in the best interest of the United States economy to close
this case against Microsoft, and allow them and the rest of the
country to get on with business, and stop wasting money and time on
making life miserable for producers of the means to keep our country
strong--the courts could better use their time and money on other
matters--online porn, money laundering by fringe groups.
Sincerely,
Bernita Colthorp
MTC-00010193
From: Jerry (038) Mary Fields
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that the government should settle with Microsoft
quickly and then leave it alone. Please don't cripple the industry
or spend any more of our tax money by prolonging this suit, nor by
starting other similar ones. Many people in this field are out of
jobs. The computer/technological industry needs stimulation and tax
breaks to put Americans back to work.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Mary Fields
820 Carter Rd
Mineral Wells, TX 76067
MTC-00010194
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:32am
Subject: Please listen to the public
I am going to try and keep this as short as I can, it may be
hard because this is a issue that I am very passionate about.
I am a computer science student at Iowa State University, I have
developed software for many years now on a variety of platforms
including, Windows and many different types of Unix and Linux
operating systems. I have also had the pleasure of maintaining these
systems. My knowledge and experience is nothing special, I am just
like hundreds of thousands of people that work on keeping our
systems as secure as we can.
I could write you many pages about problems with the current
state of the computer industry and how that relates to the Microsoft
Corporation. But I am not going to do that. I am going to tell you
about some of the issues that I think are prevalent to not only
system administrators but to every computer user.
With the increasing amount of sensitive information that is on
computers today security is a major issue. Some people, including
some of my closest friends, are unable to see this. This is probably
one of the biggest problems that we face as a computer dependent
society. They are uneducated about the risks they take every time
they use a computer. Most people would probably just try and say
that I am paranoid, however the truth is that my education and
experiences is what makes me look paranoid but the risks I talk
about are real.
So what does this have to do with Microsoft. The answer to that
question is very long, there are more security holes in Microsoft's
software than I can keep track of, which is why I will only focus on
those that affect the most users.
I know of these holes not because I am a hacker of any kind but
because I have to fix them in order to maintain the least bit of
security.
This nation spends millions of dollars every year on Microsoft's
software, to then turn around and spend millions more to fix the
damage incurred because of a virus that it spread. Everyone is
familiar with email viruses, most people have received one and have
been infected by it, if they haven't just keep using Outlook and
wait a while. This method of putting viruses in emails costs this
nation more every year than anyone wants to think about. I don't
know the numbers and I don't think anyone truly does know them,
because fixing the problem costs a lot of time and money but so does
trying to prevent the problem.
In how many other industries can a company get away with selling
a product that puts the buyer in danger without informing them about
it. When you purchase Microsoft software do they tell you about all
the security holes in it and how what damage they can do? Of course
they can't predict what tools a hacker will use but once a problem
is found a solution needs to be found. This is something that
Microsoft is not very diligent at doing. But who can blame them for
not wanting to publish this information, after all if they did how
many people do you think would spend $300 for the upgrade version of
there next software, which fixed some problems but made just as many
new ones. Well I will tell you who can blame them, everyone,
starting with yourself. If I had a car and the manufacture knew that
it could explode if someone kicked and they didn't tell me about it,
they would be sued to no end. Many people say that this comparison
is outrageous, but it is not, this is just how unsafe there software
is. The reason people believe this is because that is what Microsoft
wants you to believe and what they sell you in every ad that they
have. Really, a company that big can sell the general public
anything it wants.
But now for some proof.
The computer industry had its ways of making standards just like
every other industry. Most of the time those standards are set by a
non-profit organization, like IEEE. But because Microsoft is so huge
and controls most of the market they don't feel like they have to
follow the rules. Right now they can create whatever standard they
want and because they sell so many systems it becomes a standard.
But the problem is that there is nothing standard about it.
Standards are published and available to the public, something that
Microsoft also does not do. Take the HTML standard, or HyperText
Markup Language. There browser, Internet Explorer has its own
standards that if follows, sure it follows all of the real standards
but it has included other things are are not standard, I do not know
what they are because they will not tell me. But what I do know is
that the computer I am currently sitting at right now has a problem
with it. I am using a Silicon Graphics Indigo 2 R10000 machine
running a version of Unix and using Netscape Navigator as my
browser. When trying to view pages on Microsoft's own web site it
will not display the content. But when I go to my Windows machine it
does not have a problem at all. But the problem is not me, the
problem is the site, I am convinced that it will not display the
content when using Netscape.
Microsoft will call this a coincidence or a problem with
Netscape, but the problem is
[[Page 25270]]
with Microsoft and that they have enough power to make it the truth!
This is a situation that needs to stop and this is the time to
do it. We have an opportunity here to stop something that should
have been stooped long ago. I don't care what Microsoft says is best
for our nation. It boils down to what is best for Microsoft, if you
think they care about what is best for this nation you should
consider yourself one of there victims. A company does not get as
large as they are by caring about anyone but themselves.
Freedom of information is a wonderful thing, and that is what
makes the internet one of the most powerful tools today. I should
not have to remind you of what freedom is, but I will say this, the
longer Microsoft pushes on its current path the less free the
internet will become. A judge would say that is speculation but I
don't care, I want it to me motivation, motivation to do the right
thing and just think about where we will be in ten years. Microsoft
will never own the internet, at least I hope not, but if we are not
careful they will control it.
Think of it as a kind of conspiracy, the amount of information
you have is almost nothing when you know the truth. I can not prove
that is the case here but there are millions of us out here that can
feel it. I thank you very much for your time, I did not accomplish
my goal of a short letter and if you have made it this far I know
that you will do the right thing and put and end to this situation
and open up a new and better door to the future.
I leave you with this. Microsoft is huge but programers around
the world is much bigger. The progress of open source software has
grown so much in the last few years and I believe me that it is just
the tip of the iceberg. The future of computing lies in our hands
and not Microsoft, but if we are not careful that can change.
Thanks again,
Ryan Grimm
1232 Hawthron Court
Iowa State University
Ames IA, 50010
MTC-00010195
From: ANDERSON,MIKE (HP-USA,ex1)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I strongly support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in
their desire to settle this lawsuit. Close this case and get the
states off Microsoft's back.
I believe that the Govt has totally missed their target in this
case. By having a standard Operating System, innovation as been
significantly increased and software costs decreased. E.G. if every
auto manufacturer's vehicles ran on a different fuel source, the
cost of fuel would be much higher. Same principal for software.
Without Microsofts innovations, our countries technological lead
would not exist...in my opinion.
Regards :-)
Mike Anderson / IT Technical Staff
Field Support Tools/Integration & Development
HP Services North America Information Technology
Phone: 770/T-795-6488 (urgent voice msg pages)
After 3 rings, home office & cell phone ring simultaneously.
Email: [email protected]
The doorstep of the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of your
own ignorance.
MTC-00010196
From: Jeff Clayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:40am
Subject: Against Proposed Anti-Trust Settlement with Microsoft
To Whom It May Concern:
Regarding the proposal to settle the Microsoft anti-trust action
through donations to the public schools: this ``solution''
scandalously rewards and abets the anti-competetive practices it
pretends to penalize.
It is true that there would be significant benefit to the
schools. However, the big winner in this affair would be Microsoft
itself. Consumers, competitors, and the industry that Microsoft has
so damaged by abusing its monopoly position, are in no way
compensated.
* Microsoft escapes an overwhelming finding of fault with the
least of penalties--it gives away product, at small cost to itself,
to a market in which sales are hard-won.
* This is tantamount to a marketing seed program. The tobacco
industry must wonder how it failed to be directed to make amends to
injured smokers by donating tobacco products to schools.
There has not been a penalty proposed which would fail its
purpose so utterly, since Brer Rabbit was consigned to the briar
patch in the Uncle Remus fable.
I urge any party to this proposal, who has the will and the
ability to resist it, to refuse such an ineffective, cynical and
outrageous settlement.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey T. Clayton
143 Kathryn Drive
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
[email protected]
MTC-00010197
From: Raymond Mercier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,
I do not believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft will
remedy the harm already caused by Microsoft's past restriction of
trade practices. Further, I do not see in the settlement any
protection for ``Open Source'' software providers, specifically
Linux and Apache which make up a large part of the Internet's
infrastructure. Far from protecting the public from Microsoft's
predatory behavior, this agreement seems to simply spell out the
rules under which Microsoft may continue to dominate markets and
exclude competitors. The Microsoft Antitrust Settlement fails to
protect and serve the American people, who deserve better.
Sincerely,
Raymond Mercier, Jr.
3 Bear Hill Road, Apartment 7
Hillsboro, NH 03244
Phone # 603-464-4934
E-mail [email protected]
MTC-00010198
From: Wesley Watters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:58am
Subject: What I think.
Hello,
I think that as long as Microsoft continues in it's present form
that there is NO competition in any software market that Microsoft
enters. This is against all of our values as Americans. I think it
is your duty to save us from this convicted criminal enterprise, and
restore competitive balance. I also think an investigation shoud be
started into Ashcrofts blatent selling out of America's interests in
this case.
Do as Judge Jackson said. BREAK UP MICROSOFT!!!!
Thank You,
Wesley Watters
[email protected]
MTC-00010199
From: John J. Urbaniak
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/11/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Department of Justice
(I wish to have your Department submit this letter to Judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly regarding the proposed Microsoft Antitrust
Trial settlement. I have sent a similar letter to the State's
Attorneys General who are in opposition to the settlement. Thank
you.)
I am the President and founder of Aviar, Inc., a software
development company specializing in Computerized Maintenance
Management Systems (CMMS). I have been in the computer field since
1966.
Aviar was founded in September, 1983. We developed and marketed
a DOS CMMS program called ``Ounce of Prevention System.'' This
system was very successful: We had more than 550 users worldwide,
and in 1990 we were judged ``Best Overall'' in a user-satisfaction
survey sponsored by A. T. Kearney Associates. The survey results
were published in ``Industry Week'' Magazine, February 5, 1990.
Personally, I have written several articles on CMMS techniques
and requirements which were published in major magazines such as
``Maintenance Technology.'' I have also been invited to speak at
Maintenance-oriented trade shows and meetings.
As of 1994, our company had 13 employees and annual revenues
approaching $500,000. Our growth rate was approximately 22% per
year.
At that time, the PC industry was changing from the DOS
character-based mode of operating to the Graphical User Interface
mode, based on the mouse and graphical screens. Aviar decided to
develop a new version of our successful DOS program.
We did extensive research to evaluate software platforms. We
studied Microsoft Windows and IBM's OS/2 Operating Systems. It was
my professional judgement at that time that OS/2 was a far superior
operating platform than Windows for the
[[Page 25271]]
specific requirements of a CMMS product. OS/2 was more stable; less
prone to system crashes and loss of data; more resistant to viruses;
more efficient and made better use of system resources.
It is my judgement, as of the present time, that OS/2 is still a
superior operating environment for the needs of Maintenance
Management software. OS/2 is still more stable, less prone to
crashes and loss of data, more resistant to viruses and more
efficient than any version of Windows.
So, based on this judgement, my company developed a new version
of our CMMS product, called ``Oz of Prevention System'' for the OS/2
platform. Little did I know that while we were working hard to
produce an excellent advanced version of our well-received DOS
system, Microsoft was acting illegally to prevent our product from
ever reaching our potential customers.
We didn't realize that Microsoft was threatening companies such
as Hewlett-Packard to prevent them from offering PC's with OS/2 pre-
loaded. We didn't realize that Microsoft threatened even IBM to
prevent them from offering and supporting computers loaded with
their own OS/2! But these activities came out in the trial.
As of this writing, Aviar has shrunk to two full-time employees
and one part-timer. Our revenues have dropped by 80%. I personally
have not received any meaningful salary in several years.
It was NOT a simple mis-judgement on my part which caused this.
It was Microsoft's illegal maintenance of its monopoly, combined
with IBM's [forced?] retreat from the PC Operating System market.
In order for us to sell our OS/2-based system, we must also
supply computers along with the software. This is because it is
impossible to obtain PCs with OS/2 pre-loaded on the open market. We
have to assemble machines and package them along with our software.
This adds significantly to our costs, and puts us at a competitive
disadvantage, even though we believe our product is superior. If we
buy a machine, say from IBM, we still have to pay them for Windows,
which we don't want and which we immediately remove. This is not
right, not in the America which I thought I lived in.
I believe the following:
1. My company has a right to exist, to succeed or fail on our
own, without being prevented access to our market by Microsoft.
2. We have the right to innovate on our own, without being
forced to develop software on Microsoft's terms and conditions.
3. We have the right to grow our own markets without being
prevented and hindered by the Microsoft monopoly.
4. We have the responsibility to offer our customers the very
best product we can.
In my judgement, the very best product for a CMMS application
will not be based on Windows, it will be based on a superior
Operating System such the OS/2 platform for the reasons stated
above. It is simply wrong either to
1. Force us out of business, or
2. Force us to develop for Windows, which we believe is
inferior.
I believe, therefore, that the DoJ proposed settlement with
Microsoft does absolutely NOTHING to prevent Microsoft from using
its monopoly to continue to restrict our customers from acquiring
OS/2 computers, and thus to restrict us from competing in a free and
open market. In fact, the proposed settlement actually strengthens
Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC Operating System market, in spite
of their illegally judged behavior.
My company will continue to suffer and my customers will
continue to be denied access to what I believe is a superior product
on a superior operating environment.
All we want is a chance to innovate and compete fairly. The
proposed settlement does not facilitate this. I ask that the
settlement be rejected and stronger remedies be enacted which allow
my small company to compete honestly without being forced out of
existence by the illegal actions of Microsoft.
I assume that there is enormous lobbying pressure and media hype
generated by powerful pro-Microsoft entities. I am just a small
businessperson trying to be moderately successful offering a
superior product to my customers. I haven't done anything illegal as
Microsoft has done. I pray that American Justice applies to my small
business just as well as it applies to giant corporations.
Sincerely,
John J. Urbaniak, Ph.D.
President
Aviar, Inc.
Ounce of Prevention Software
1120 Perry Highway
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
(412) 488-9730 Voice
(412) 488-0190 Fax
[email protected]
MTC-00010200
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Ms. Hesse,
I have been working in the software and technology sector for
over twenty years. I experienced programming before there was a
Microsoft, I experienced e-mail, the internet and web browsing
before Microsoft entered the arena, I experienced Java (TM)
technology before Microsoft took interest in it. In all these cases,
I can assure you that there was more competition, *both*
intellectual and economic, before Microsoft lumbered into the
picture. I also experienced AT&T when it was a monopoly and
afterwards. As a monopoly, it was undeniably a better place to work
because of all the non-work related comforts available and the job
security, but the productivity of AT&T improved and its creativity
did not suffer after its monopoly was ended.
Too many excellent technologies are struggling or have struggled
(and lost) against Microsoft while Microsoft continues to produce
buggy, bloated, insecure products that lack creativity. Most of the
Microsoft ``innovations''--if examined closely--are inferior
variations of the creations of its struggling competitors. For
example, while Apple worked hard to merge the best operating system
(UNIX and its variants) with a creative re-working of the best OS
user interface (Apple's own) to produce OS X, Microsoft follows a
year later with XP, which took the high resolution, large-icon look
and feel of the Apple product (and even stole the ``X'' from the
name) and grafted it onto its old, buggy NT operating system . . .
the result, not surprisingly was a buggy OS with major security
flaws. Yet, XP will crush OS X not because it is better or more
innovative, but because Microsoft has such an enormous installed
base and because--to paraphrase the old expression regarding IBM--
nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft.
In addition to the installed base, the greatest factor that
assures the continuance of the Microsoft monopoly is their adherence
to closed, proprietary data formats that constantly change in minor,
unimportant ways so as to frustrate competitors that attempt to
interface with them. The Office Suite, with its Word, Excel,
PowerPoint and other data formats, maintains its control of the
office productivity tool market by making sure it is difficult for
other tools to read those formats and almost impossible to write
them. If a split of Microsoft along OS and application lines is
completely off the table, then any other remedy should, at a
minimum, require Microsoft to openly and freely publish up-to-date
specifications of its data formats. Without the ability of
competitors--and especially innovative, small-operation
competitors--to easily read AND write Microsoft formats, real
competition can never occur. Microsoft Office document formats are
the lingua franca of the business world and any tools that plan to
compete MUST speak that language fluently. Naturally, the views
expressed here are entirely my own and should not in any way be
construed to reflect the opinions of AT&T, its management, its
employees or its shareholders.
Best of luck with your endeavors in pursuit of Justice in this
matter,
John Mocenigo, PhD
John MocenigoE-Mail: [email protected]
Research @ AT&T LabsVoice: 1-973-360-8639
180 Park Av / Bldg 103 / Rm D-225Fax: 1-973-360-8055
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
MTC-00010201
From: Ken Cobler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement
MTC-00010202
From: Anthony W. Youngman
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 8:57am
Subject: Comments on the antitrust suit
Please find attached a document with my comments on the suit, as
per the Tunney act. You may notice I'm a UK citizen, but as this
case has international repercussions and my competition authorities
are likely to get involved when the DoJ decides it's closed the
case, I trust my input may have some merit.
[[Page 25272]]
Yours,
Anthony Youngman
CC: 'dennispowell(a)earthlink.net'
Critique on the Microsoft Settlement
Reading the Proposed Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact
Statement, I am somewhat disturbed at what appears to be contained
therein in places.
CIS II (Overview of Relief) looks pretty impressive. However, on
reading the Judgement, those ``strong enforcement provisions'' boil
down to the one line in IV.A.4 of ``The Plaintiffs shall have the
authority to seek such orders as are necessary from the Court to
enforce this Final Judgement . . .''. Given the problems enforcing
the 1995 Consent Decree I expect that these strong provisions will
prove very weak. Don't forget, again with the 1995 decree, that
Judge Sporkin refused to sign the decree, and it was signed by Judge
Jackson instead. Judge Jackson's obvious frustration at Microsoft
during the current case probably stems at least in part from the
realisation of how easily Microsoft skated round and bypassed the
1995 decree. Isn't the current case dealing with exactly the
consequences that the 1995 case was intended to prevent?
It also concerns me that Microsoft has been convicted of
breaking the law. Yet there is no attempt whatsoever at punishment.
It is wealth that gives Microsoft its power. That wealth has been
gained at least in part illegally. That wealth can be used to ensure
that Microsoft survives the five years of the judgement reasonably
intact, at which point it can resume all the destructive tactics it
has employed in the past. This fear of Microsoft surviving the
remedy phase moderately unscathed will be more than sufficient to
permit Microsoft to threaten OEMs during the remedy phase--``When
it's all over we'll come back and get you!''. And while I can't
offhand think of any examples, I have come across many examples of
Microsoft continuing to behave in a reprehensible and probably
illegal manner even during and after the trial. I am sure others
will have provided you with examples. It is all a matter of trust
and many, myself included, believe that Microsoft is a psychopathic
corporation constitutionally incapable of behaving itself.
However, let's tackle my concerns over the remedy.
III. Prohibited Conduct.
A.
``Microsoft shall have no obligation to provide such a
termination notice . . . that has received two or more such notices
. . .''. Justified, unjustified, questionable notices? On a
simplistic reading, Microsoft is likely to make a point of quibbling
at every possible opportunity. Past performance leads me to expect
Microsoft to pick fights with any OEM it expects to have difficulty
with, specifically to get itself in a position where it can invoke
this clause. This needs to be tightened up severely.
B.
I fail to see how this protects the consumer and prevents the
illegal practice of ``per processor'' licensing. One of most telling
and effective ways that the IBM monopoly was broken was when they
were forced to price hardware and software separately. Given that
Windows is now supplied for the most part as a ``recovery disk''
which restores the hard disk to ``factory fresh'' condition, it
should be a condition that OEMs are charged only for copies of
Windows supplied to consenting customers. How hard is it for a
consumer to switch on a bare pc, put the recovery CD in the CD
drive, and watch the computer ``recover'' itself to a ``factory
fresh install state''? I have no problems with Microsoft obliging
OEMs to ship their PCs with an Operating System included as part of
the package, just as long as this includes the obligation to offer a
non-Microsoft alternative. After all, what is marginal cost of
throwing in a Debian CD?
C.
``Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee . .
.''. Why is this section so much weaker than the wording at I]I.A.?
You need to add wording forbidding technical or other measures as
well! Bear in mind Microsoft has already used technical measures to
destroy the ability of PCs to dual-boot, any repetition of this
needs to be nipped in the bud. When you install NT4, it nags you to
be allowed to write a ``signature'' to the start of the disk. If you
let it, this will destroy older versions of lilo, the default linux
boot manager. The cynical amongst us might assume that this was
deliberate . . . It is thought Microsoft is planning similar tactics
for when PCs migrate to the IA64 architecture (Intel's x86
replacement), and with its current recovery disk practice it has
already implemented something similar. If you are forced to
reinstall Windows (a not uncommon occurrence) a ``recovery'' will
wipe any changes you have made to your system, including any third-
party Operating System you may have installed. The sheer hassle of
reinstalling linux every time Windows breaks is enough to put a lot
of people off. And Microsoft has already introduced a new disk
format which (intentionally?) prevents any other Operating System
from sharing the disk. It is suspected that this will be the only
format acceptable with the new IA64 generation of CPUs.
If Microsoft does that, the provisions granted to OEMs in
section 4 will be worthless, because it will be technically
impossible despite the fact that it is contractually possible. You
need to add wording similar to the following:
``Both when being installed/restored and in normal/abnormal
usage, Windows must restrict itself to the portion of disk allocated
to it by the user. It may not assume that that portion is the entire
disk unless it has positively detected the absence of any third-
party boot loader or Operating System. It must also provide a
mechanism whereby any third party can invoke the Windows loader
similar to the existing boot mechanism where a loader loads and
executes the first 512 bytes at the start of the disk or
partition.''
E.
``Microsoft shall make available . . . for the sole purpose of
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, on
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms . . .''. In other words,
Microsoft are free to discriminate against their sole surviving real
competition, Open Source. By definition, any ``for cost'' licencing
scheme discriminates against Open Source.
This section should be rewritten to say something along the
lines of ``Microsoft shall publish and make freely available a
formal description of any protocol used by a Windows Client to
communicate with a Windows server. Microsoft are free to forbid the
use of their Intellectual Property to be used to enable two non-
Windows systems to communicate, or to forbid the use of their
Intellectual Property without the appropriate CAL (Client Access
Licence). Any such CAL must be Operating System agnostic, and be
supplied and charged separately from the Windows Client.''
After all, to permit otherwise is surely the equivalent of
allowing the English Language to be patented? And isn't it,
actually, also illegal under US Federal law? I thought it was
illegal to word ``requests for procurement'' in such a manner as
only one company's goods fitted the bill. Without a clause such as
thin, any requirement of Microsoft compatibility would effectively
require the use of Microsoft software and as such would be illegal.
As I've worded it, there is no restriction on competitors making
their software speak the same ``language'' (as indeed there should
not be), but it is perfectly possible for Microsoft to charge a fair
fee for the use of any of their Intellectual Property. Very similar,
in fact, to Hewlett-Packard's Open Source printer drivers which
declare prominently ``For use with HP printers only. Usage with any
other make of printer may infringe third-party Copyright and/or
Licence agreements''. By placing the obligation on the user to have
a valid usage licence (eg a CAL) we can sidestep any argument over
what is ``reasonable and non-discriminatory''.
I notice also that the Competitive Impact Statement mentions
Kerberos in this section. Interestingly enough, Microsoft has
already attempted to subvert Kerberos once yet this section would
have minimal effect on the tactic used. Windows 2000 client
authenticated perfectly to a Unix Kerberos server, yet when the
Windows 2000 client was granted authorisation, it threw it away
because the server wasn't a Windows 2000 server. And again, if
developers are licenced, who is going to pay for a licence to
distribute MS-Kerberos for linux? More reason to say the
specification must be openly published and the licence fee charged
to the user. Interestingly enough, Microsoft didn't use the patent/
copyright trick to attempt to prevent reverse-engineering of their
extensions. They wrapped the document with a licence agreement that
said ``if you wish to read the spec, you must agree not to implement
a non-Microsoft implementation''. If enforced, it would have had the
effect of making non-MS servers incompatible because the client
would refuse to use them, and there would have been nothing the
server software authors could have done about it.
H.
1. ``Enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware
Product''. Taken in conjunction with the (implied) requirements of
section D, that Microsoft Middleware should not have an unfair
advantage, these two requirements are mutually incompatible!
Large chunks of Microsoft Middleware are implemented as part of
the OS for a reason--
[[Page 25273]]
they are loaded in RAM when the computer starts up, and they stay
there. This means that, for example, Internet Explorer will always
appear to load faster than Netscape Navigator, because large chunks
of it are already loaded.
Microsoft are also permitted to use their own middleware to
launch, for example as mentioned by the Competitive Impact
Statement, ActiveX (should the user's chosen alternative not include
that capability). But what if I the user chose that alternative
precisely because it did not include the capability? Should
Microsoft have the right to demand that I have the capability to
execute ActiveX, even if I wish to delete it on security grounds?
This section should demand that users are allowed to de-install
and delete Microsoft Middleware. It may not be advisable, and it may
result in large chunks of functionality disappearing, but if the
user does not want that functionality they should be allowed to get
rid of it. Completely. Totally. Utterly. To allow otherwise is to
allow Microsoft to continue its current practice of forcing unwanted
software onto non-consenting consumers, and if that software has
major security holes (like ActiveX, for example) then this is a
serious issue.
And as has been suggested in various places by other people, it
should be possible to get and install a ``Windows Lite'' which is
cheaper and comes without middleware.
J. No provision of this final Judgement shall:
THIS SECTION IS EXTREMELY WORRISOME!!!
Firstly, secrecy and security are mutually exclusive. If
Microsoft needs to invoke this section then it is a pretty sure-fire
conclusion that the ``security'' implemented by the relevant APIs is
shoddy and easy to break. In which case, this section should not
cover it.
Given Microsoft's extremely shoddy security in the past, it
should in fact be a requirement that all security protocols,
interfaces and APIs are published and disseminated widely almost
from the moment Microsoft start developing them.
One only needs to look at the current DMCA/FBI/ElcomSoft case to
see how secrecy is incompatible with security. Some unknown Adobe
programmer took a well-known security algorithm. It had several
traits in common with Enigma which could easily have defeated
``kiddie'' cryptographers. And don't forget, Enigma was strong
enough to frustrate the most powerful computers available in the
early 1940s--they typically broke only 75% of messages. Okay,
Adobe's method wasn't quite as strong as Enigma . . .
But this unknown programmer thought he'd be clever and add a few
tweaks . . ., and succeeded in converting this technique into a
Caesar cipher. This is so weak a kid can break it using pen and
paper alone in half an hour--I should know--I've done exactly that
and I wasn't even a teenager at the time.
This section should not permit Microsoft to use security as a
pretence for secrecy in any shape or form whatsoever.
To my mind, this judgement is almost too prescriptive, allowing
too much interference in Microsoft's internal affairs. It also does
little to assist competition on its merits. I personally would like
to see a simple remedy along the following lines:
To restore competition generally:
Microsoft is forbidden from entering into any OEM contracts
whatsoever. It must publish a price list and stick to it, but that
price list may include reasonable volume discounts to take into
account the economies of volume where an OEM buys a lot of copies.
The price of bundled middleware and applications should also be
reasonably comparable with the price of the same software as a
stand-alone or upgrade purchase.
The problem with having ``Covered OEMs'' is that Microsoft can
to some extent control who is in which group. By having a noticeable
differential between the two covered groups and ``the small guys''
Microsoft can make it very difficult for any individual OEM to move
into a more favourable category. This way, if a small OEM makes good
PCs, they can grow and at the same time provide the OS of the
customer's choice without fear that the system is susceptible to
being rigged. If customers want Windows, they can buy it from the
OEM, or as seems more and more to be the case, they can enter into a
direct licencing agreement with Microsoft themselves. We need a
means whereby small OEMs with no affinity to Microsoft can seriously
threaten the Dells and Compaqs. Without this, the fear of future
retaliation keeps the big OEMs in line, while preferential treatment
of large OEMs by Microsoft keeps the small boys from getting bigger.
And at the end of the decree, we will still have the problem where
OEMs say ``how high'' when asked by Microsoft to jump.
Microsoft may establish OEM programs where entry is open at
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms to anyone who wishes to
ensure their hardware works successfully with Windows Operating
Systems. Such programs may not require any degree of control by
Microsoft over the hardware vendor's Intellectual Property, and in
particular may not seek to hide hardware specifications by way of
Non-Disclosure-Agreements.
At the moment, linux in particular is hamstrung by the
difficulty of getting information from manufacturers. Hewlett-
Packard is a case in point, where it has been (officially?) quoted
that for certain HP printers, HP was contractually prevented from
telling customers how they worked. So if something changed on your
computer and the printer stopped working, all you were suddenly left
with was an expensive doorstop despite the fact there was no problem
with the printer itself. Microsoft Operating Systems must not assume
or demand sole control of the computer systems on which they run, or
interfere with third-party software installed elsewhere on the
system. As mentioned above. If Microsoft software assumes sole
ownership of the computer it is free wilfully to destroy anything
else the user may have installed. This is just plain unacceptable.
Microsoft must publish all APIs, protocols, interfaces and file
formats that they provide or use in other words, the ``language'' of
Microsoft computing. By definition, writing an alternative
implementation is not a breach of copyright. By definition, if it is
encumbered by patents it cannot be an Open Standard suitable for
implementation by Government. And if there are any intellectual
property issues, these should be addressed by the sale of user
licences, which must be priced independently of the operating system
on which the software runs. Bearing in mind I thought Federal
Procurement Regulations required open standards, I would have
thought Microsoft should already be complying with this requirement
if they wish their software to be used for Federal Government
Business.
It should be a mandatory requirement that all protocols used by
Microsoft Software to communicate between computers must be clearly
and publically documented such that a competitor can implement a
compatible equivalent. Please note that it says by implication ``all
software'' so that communication between databases, between mail
client and server, etc is all caught.
It should also be a mandatory requirement that all file formats
used for transferring information between users must be clearly and
publically documented such that a competitor cart implement a
compatible equivalent. Here we may have a patent problem, but I
would have thought any attempt to obstruct compatibility was a clear
breach of competition law, and possibly a breach of the
censtitutional justification for patents.
I'm less sure of requiring Microsoft to document internal
formats such as the NTFS file system, the internal layout of their
SQL-Server database, or their Exchange database. There are very good
technical reasons to say they should, but I'm not sure that there
are good competitive anti-trust reasons to do so.
Any such documentation must be released at least six months
before the Software in question is Released To Manufacturing (RTM),
and also no later than the date Microsoft start shipping the
software to testers outside of Microsoft or OEM employees. RTM is
defined as no later than the date Microsoft permit OEMs to ship the
software to customers, or the date on which Microsoft implement a
pricing regime that covers more than the cost of pressing and
shipping the distribution media. The documentation must be included
with the software without NDAs or restrictive licences.
Enforcement should be open to anyone. If Microsoft releases
software in contravention of the decree, then anybody can act as
plaintiff and seek a Federal restraining order barring distribution
of the software. Upon production of sufficiently compelling
evidence, then the Federal court will grant the order.
This remedy is actually pretty similar to the one applied to
IBM. Effectively, it requires products to be unbundled, and
specifications to be produced to enable competitors to have a
level(ler) playing field. It should be a requirement that
competition is restored before the order is lifted. At present all
Microsoft need do is bide their time, and they have plenty of cash
in the bank with which to do so.
[[Page 25274]]
These comments have been submitted by Anthony Youngman, a
Programmer/Analyst and Database Administrator/Programmer based in
London, England. Contact details:
Anthony Youngman
9 Shaw House
Victoria Street
Upper Belvedere
Kent DA17 5NA
United Kingdom
Office tel: +44 20 7351 5000
Office fax: +44 20 7351 9396
MTC-00010203
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:59am
Dear D.O.J.:
If it is in the public interest that you hold these hearings
then the public should know. The public has a need to know.
Please televise and broadcast in every way possible the
proceedings of this and other public interest cases.
Very truly yours,
Solomon Katz
Who art thou that thou should be considered above a grain of
sand?
MTC-00010204
From: Johanna Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire
to settle this lawsuit. I also feel that the harassment of Microsoft
has gone on too long.
Sincerely,
J.M.Stephens
Tucson, AZ
MTC-00010206
From: ANTHONY SHUMBER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Case
To Whom it may Concern
Get off the back of Microsoft and go chase ENRON they actually
hurt people.
Tony
MTC-00010207
From: Ivan Prado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:16am
Subject: Hello
HI, Just to say:
I have been using computer for many years now. I want to tell to
that this past's years I have never seen a bigger monopoly than
Microsoft is in the coputer world. Their domain is far reaching than
just the operating system, for with that they can decide the
technology for video cards, sound, digital cameras, and many other
multimedia applications (no wonder they keep adding multimedia
'features') because their software other than allowing other
programs to work (like a OS used to be) now adds many standars
(direct X) that eliminate the posibility of independent
improvements, for that and many other practices Microsoft and thier
softwares are very dangerous, and they can in fact continue to
expand their power and continue to force the computer industry at
their will (more or less) because the costumer base is so huge.
Their sheer strengh of the number of computers running on their
programs is enough reason itselft to do something, for it is too
dangerous, anything considered above the law that MS did, thats just
a bonus and a good excuse to use against them; this dangerous
corporation.
A good decision would be one that defines whats an OS, and so
make that OS what it originaly was: just a program that turned on
the computer and put is together, the other software companies can
run their software, and every program should be a single application
apart from the rest, the OS apart from all applications even if they
are from MS. Device standars (like video card drivers and api)
should be decided by the card manufacturer (two big players right
now) and so software companies decide what products to support, or
to support both. Some compatibility would be lost, but that a very
little price to pay for the freedom of the computer industry. Im
sure once the industry is free we would see much more imrpovements
in multiple directions, not just a few like it is right now (like
direct X)
Could you please tell me what happens to this e-mail?
MTC-00010208
From: Burton Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hearings
U.S. District Court Judge J. Frederick Motz
I implore you to rule that the settlement proposed by
Microsoft's lawyers does not impose the remedy that would address
their misdeeds. They are giving away product that will cost them
less than $400 Million dollars but not give the schools the $1
Billion they claim is the settlement.
Two previous courts have ruled that Microsoft has broken the
antitrust laws. Their proposed settlement does not hold them
accountable in any meaningful way and actually advances their
illegal gains. Schools will receive product that will further
Microsoft products at the expense of Apple Computer and free choice.
The nine remaining states are right to reject this settlement and
you should send the message that monopolists must but brought to
justice just as any other convicted felon.
Here in Connecticut, our attorney general, has been one of the
lead attorneys in the case against Microsoft and for free choice in
the marketplace. I trust his judgment in rejecting the proposed
Microsoft settlement. He has steadfastly stood up and spoken out on
my behalf to ensure that individuals, companies and governments are
given the right to chose the solution that best suits their needs
and not one dictated by a convicted monopolist.
Your decision will affect lives for many years to come. It is a
heavy burden. You must decide and demonstrate that laws and the
judiciary decide on a just penalty, not a self serving industrial
bully.
I look forward to seeing how you decide.
Sincerely,
Burton Cohen
TBI Computer, LLC
[email protected]
(203) 222-1878 Telephone
(203) 858-4728 Cell Phone
MTC-00010209
From: lsmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Case
Dear Sir,
Attached please find my concerns and suggestions regarding
Microsoft. Regards,
Larry Smith
LAWRENCE G. SMITH, JR.
179 Old Orchard Lane Wayside NJ 07712
(732) 493-3299
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you to urge you and your Department and the federal
government to end the political squabbling and endorse the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft case. This settlement will essentially
force Microsoft not only to abandon its former so-called
anticompetitive practices, but will also obligate the company to
share its systems and its technology with its competitors. Windows
will be designed now to accept non-Microsoft software. Microsoft has
agreed to license its Windows systems products to other computer
makers for uniform terms and conditions. Microsoft cannot retaliate
against its competitors. Most importantly this settlement will allow
Microsoft to continue to exist as a corporate entity in the form
that has made it a national and international technological giant.
We need this company solid, solvent and at work. I hope to see the
settlement in place soon.
Sincerely,
Lawrence G. Smith, Jr.
MTC-00010210
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald and Elizabeth Wanderer
1033 Tilghman Court
Wayne, PA 19087-5879
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
After a three-year long court battle, I was pleased to hear that
a settlement was finally reached between the Department of Justice
and Microsoft. I sincerely hope that this is the end of this
nonsense and that no further legal action is being taken at the
federal level.
Taking into account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did
not get off lightly. In fact, Microsoft has to now make several
substantial changes to the way that they handle their business. For
example, Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new
rights to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software
programs that compete with programs included within Windows.
Computer makers will now be free to remove the means by which
consumers access various features of
[[Page 25275]]
Windows. Computer makers can replace access to those features with
access to non-Microsoft software. This is more than fair.
With the many terms of the agreement, there should be no reason
for the government to pursue further litigation on any level. Not
only would it be redundant, but a serious waste of time and money
all over again.
Sincerely,
Donald and Elizabeth Wanderer
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00010211
From: RUFUS WILSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:40am
Subject: Stop Created a problem where none exist!!!
[email protected]. I support The Bush and Mirosoft
settlement, Stop weasting tax payer Money and creating problems
where none exist.
Rufus John Wilson [email protected] 1-11-2002
MTC-00010212
From: Cheryl Dively
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This email is to let you know I support the Bush Administration
and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. I believe the
proposed settlement is in the public's best interest.
Cheryl Dively
MacKenzie Commercial/ONCOR International
Direct Dial: 410-494-6659
[email protected] or
visit our web site at: http://www.mackenziecommercial.com
MTC-00010214
From: Seamus J. Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:50am
Subject: microsoft
A great American success story. Leave them alone.
Seamus J. Wilson
MTC-00010215
From: Ronald Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:56am
Subject: microsoft
leave it go.....
If it was not for Microsoft and windows ,I would not have a
computer .I thank Gates for his products
Why don't they go after AOL
MTC-00010216
From: John M. Sours
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:03am
Subject: An Appeal for Microsoft.
Renata B. Hesse
Anti Trust Division
Department of Justice
I would like to encourage the acceptance of the proposed
settlement of this lengthy action against Microsoft. I firmly
believe that the economy needs the reassurance that the government
is now free of this sort of damaging mentality. The state of
Washington desperately needs all the economic boost it can possible
get, and Microsoft is the best hope we have for a turn around. We
are one of the leading states in unemployment, and a new wave of
pink slips are in the mill for several of our other major employers.
There is no doubt that Microsoft is an aggressive innovative
company. It's history is an outline of the American dream, and a
role model for all those other high technology startup businesses
that hope to also flourish. I have heard Mr. Gates say that he is
constantly looking back over his shoulder to see which one of them
is going to be the one that closes in on him. This should be the
function of a free and open market, not micro management review by
big government. This action needs to be terminated once and for all
for the good of the entire economy.
Please bring us some good news.
Thank you.
John M. Sours
Spokane, WA
MTC-00010217
From: Alayo, Sandra
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I would like to offer my opinion that the settlement be
accepted. It is time to let the company devote it's resources to
innovate instead of litigate.
Sandra
Phone: 212-852-6567
Fax: 212-852-6510
email: mailto:[email protected]>>
MTC-00010218
From: Mary.Wollenhaupt@ago.state.ma.us@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:05am
Microsoft settlement
MTC-00010219
From: peter woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:07am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Really, enough is enough. I am disgusted that my money, taxpayer
money, was used to fund this frontal assault on a company whose only
sin was that it was more successful than its competitors. That last
time I checked, it was legal for competitors to try to destroy each
other in the marketplace (see Coca Cola vs. Pepsi; Hertz vs. Avis,
etc.). This, in case Janet Reno wasn't aware, is called captitalism;
it benefits consumers.
If the Injustice Dept under Bill Clinton were truly interested
in dismantling monopolies that injure consumers, they might have
gone after the recording industry cartel that has colluded for years
to keep the prices of records and cds artificially high. But no, the
entertainment industry new how to play the Washington game and so
has never felt the brunt of our do-gooders. It's bad enough that
Micosoft must settle at all; but, for God's sake, let's end this
idiocy and move on.
Peter Woods
[email protected]
MTC-00010220
From: Lynn Withrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:05am
Subject: To whom it may concern:
To whom it may concern:
Regarding the Microsoft request to keep the content of any
future depositions from being released to the news media: This is a
bad idea, and would only let Microsoft continue to get away with
lying and evasion.
Since this case has ramifications for the entire computer and
software industry, and for the millions of us who use computers each
and every day both at work and at home, I truly believe that we, the
general public, have a right to be informed of what both sides in
this case are saying.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Lynn Withrow
Belpre, OH
Computer Systems Specialist for Bosley Rental & Supply, Inc.
(Parkersburg, WV)
MTC-00010221
From: ralyea
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/11/02 10:10am
MTC-00010221 0001
Freehold, NJ 07728-1630
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The purpose of this letter is so that i may go on record as
being a staunch supporter of the settlement which was reached
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice, and nine states, with
the assistance of a mediator. The settlement, reached in ear
November, 2001, after extensive negotiations among all parties,
extends to terms beyond the issues in the original lawsuit.
Microsoft agreed to many terms that will help the entire
Information Technology industry, Microsoft will disclose the
intellectual property of the various internal interface used in
Windows operating system products. Microsoft will grant computer
makers broa?? new rights to configure Windows to promote even non-
Microsoft softly e programs tha?? compete with programs included
within Windows. Beginning with Windows XP, Microsoft will make it
easy to choose and promote non-Microsoft software within Windows
itself.
The Department of Justice and Microsoft have spent millions of
dollars baffling each other in the antitrust suit. Any additional
money that may be spent will be a comple waste. The government has
too many other issues to worry about right now, and cannot afford to
pour money down the drain. Our nation's economy is in trouble. A
healthy Microsoft will help provide the shot in the arm that it
needs.
Thank you for allowing me m express my views m support of the
Microsoft settlement.
Sincerely, ??
MTC-00010221-0002
MTC-00010222
From: Joe Meldrich
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25276]]
Date: 1/11/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
8314 Cricket Lake Drive Charlotte, NC 28277-9842 Phone (704)541-
8062
Fax (704)541-5895
Softex, Inc.
Friday, January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Special interests may try to undo the recent settlement reached
in the Microsoft antitrust case with the Justice Department. The
reason I am contacting you is to show my firm support for this
settlement.
Microsoft and the Justice Department reached a settlement after
three long and expensive years in court. Both Microsoft and the DOJ
spent millions on this case, and thankfully a settlement would bring
an end to this flow of resources. If the special interests prevail
Microsoft and the Justice Department will end up in court for
another three years and spend even more resources on this case. The
settlement is reasonable; there is no reason for a renewal of this
case. Under the settlement Microsoft will share more information
with competitors than any software company has ever shared before. A
revival of this case would simply waste time and money, and benefit
only special interests and those with animosity toward Microsoft.
The settlement that was reached is more than fair, and I stand
behind it.
Sincerely,
Joseph Meldrich
President
Your Converting Software Solution
MTC-00010223
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Tunney Legislation should be allowed to stand, it is a fair
settlement. Let the special interest groups that oppose it compete
in the market place instead of in court.
MTC-00010224
From: Chuck Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft
I find it rather amusing that Microsoft wants to block the
public from knowing what their executives or whomever testifies for
them. I believe most likely their motion will be denied. Microsoft
with their track record with distorting the truth is probably well
known, so I will assume the judge is aware of this.
Secondly, if Microsoft believes they did nothing wrong, that
they are the true innovators of the industry, the same people who
allowed ``the open source movement to exist,'' what are they afraid
of? Why enter a motion to deny the public to information they're
entitled to?
Remember Bill Gates' deposition? That was a joke! The guy was
lying through his teeth the whole time and when the public viewed
his deposition, it was a joke!
I'm surprised they haven't found Bill Gates with contempt of
court.
Again, this shows if it were you (John Q. Citizen) or me, we
would have had the book (the law) thrown at us and the judge would
have had a field day with us.
MTC-00010225
From: Tim Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:36am
Subject: DOJ VS Microsoft
To Whom it may concern,
The action against Microsoft needs to be settled immediately. In
these uncertain economic times it is irresponsible to be trying to
damage one of the companies that is fueling our economy to such a
great extent.
As a tax payer I am outraged by this. It is obvious that there
is more interest by some Government officials in enhancing their
careers or catering to their constituents than there is in doing the
country a service.
Sincerely Yours
Tim R. Carlson
Snohomish, WA
360-668-4047
MTC-00010226
From: Dick Uguccioni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:37am
Subject: microsoft case
end it--this country is weird--never heard of a government,
except this one, that would penalize a world leading enterprise in
its own country
did i hear right-- 41 states have signed off ??
MTC-00010227
From: Wes Mitchell
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/11/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected]
Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were
not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration,
J. Wesley Mitchell
L & M Services, Inc.
1600 132nd Ave. NE
Bellevue, WA 98005
425-637-9770
425-637-9769 FAX
CC:'[email protected]'
[[Page 25277]]
MTC-00010228
From: Melody Berkheiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Go with the Bush and Microsoft settlement. It is reasonable. It
is in the best interest of the public. It is best for every one all
around, including, but not limited to our economy.
Melody Berkheiser
MTC-00010229
From: Robert Cornell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Cornell
307 Joe Cornell Rd.
Oneonta, NY 13820
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert Cornell
MTC-00010230
From: Mark Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Williams
3957 Shadowhill Drive
Santa Rosa, Ca 95404
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Williams
MTC-00010231
From: Jack Ensley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft
1/11/02
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
To Whom it May Concern,
As a citizen of Washington State, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
I won't go into detail, but I think the proposed settlement is
fair and it is time to put this quagmire behind us. In the effort to
protect us, the government sometimes does more harm than good. I
think this has been a case of that kind. It certainly is time to
bring it to a close and this settlement seems to be a way to do it.
Thank you for letting me say my piece.
Jack Ensley
624 Shawnee Rd.
Colfax, WA. 99111
509 397 3327
MTC-00010232
From: Joe Alonzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
re: Microsoft settlement
Over the last several years the on going suit against the
Microsoft Corporation has cost us the taxpayers many, many dollars.
I can see no further reason to delay this ongoing issue any longer.
The agreed settlement sometime ago seems too have been accepted by
both parties and now its ugly head has reared up again and I would
like to see this end and get on with making our economy run and
become strong again.
Free enterprise has built this nation and it will continue to
grow without the courts telling them how to run their business.
Respectfully.
Joseph A. Alonzi
Concerned Citizen
MTC-00010233
From: Lynda Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having been an active consumer of Microsoft as well as
competitive products for many years, I feel strongly that the case
should be settled according to the agreement reached. Having
discussed this case with others, who like me, are either users at
home or at their business, not one person has expressed any thought
or feeling that they have been taken advantage of by Microsoft, or
have paid too much for the benefits and services Microsoft has
provided. While I do not agree with the governments findings, and
believe the states not agreeing to the settlement are simply
pursuing additional funding for their state budgets, it would
certainly be best for all--the consumer, the PC and software
industry, and the economy, for this settlement to be concluded, and
for the remaining states to join the settlement.
Lynda Newell
MTC-00010234
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:55am
Subject: stop MS
Judge KK;
the proposed settlement doesn't even begin to address the
predatory practices of Microsoft...and will not reign them in going
forward. please use your good efforts to make them play by the
rules.
thanks.
Gregory Winston
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010235
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:03pm
Subject: (no subject)
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were
not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to
[[Page 25278]]
state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be immense.
The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an
order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the court
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's
liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
William G. Miglino
MTC-00010236
From: Jean Gumm
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Gumm
1122 Ross Avenue
Hamilton, Oh 45013
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jean Gumm
MTC-00010237
From: David Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:06pm
Subject: Tax settlement
I support the microsoft tax settlement, and want the government
to lay off and quit harrasing microsoft.
Thank you.
David & Janice Carlson,
Liberty, Mo.
MTC-00010238
From: Peter Kulda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 11, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
I think the proposed Microsoft settlement fails to achieve the
necessary goals of a proper remedy: halting the illegal conduct,
promoting competition in this industry, and depriving Microsoft of
its illegal gains.
The United States can only maintain its competitive edge in the
global software industry if open and fair competition is promoted in
our country, which won't occur until Microsoft is stopped from
stifling its competition. I agree with the concern that if they are
not dealt a very sever penalty that is stringently enforced,
Microsoft will continue with its monopolistic practices. And if it
does, I fear that the USA will eventually fall behind in software
innovations which will lead to foreign nations taking much of the
market share, similar to how Japan to took much of the auto industry
market in the 1970's.
Thank you for hearing my opinion, and thank you for your work on
this important case.
Peter Kulda
Salt Lake City, Utah
MTC-00010239
From: Tom Swan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to stop penalizing commercial success. Let's get the
high technology sector back into the economic engine. I agree with
President Bush. Settle the Bill Gates Microsoft lawsuit and quit
wasting taxpayer money.
MTC-00010240
From: John Horvatic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:14pm
Subject: PUNISH MICROSOFT DON'T GIVE THEM MORE BUSINESS!
To whom it may concern,
Microsoft needs to be punished, and from what I have read so far
is that has not happened yet! There should be a huge fine and I'm
not talking millions I'm talking BILLIONS!!! Put them down for the
count not just for the round. What you have aggreed to do is give
them a slap on the hand and tell Microsoft to go ahead and do it all
over again and we promise not to bother you anymore. What kind of
punishment is this? Why don't you throw some of the executive team
in prison. I thought that's what you do with criminals isn't it?
Please be more aggressive with this case and don't let them get
away with what they have done and continue to do. I find the
settlement very unfair to Apple Computers Inc. To let Microsoft put
there own products in schools and force all schools to change out
there equipment will not help anyone except Microsoft spread more of
there crap out into the world.
Who profits from this? MICROSOFT!
Sincerely,
John Horvatic
MTC-00010241
From: walter roubik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:23pm
Subject: DOJ--Microsoft settlement
I want to email DOJ on the settlement, but on [email protected] I
can't find any opening for comments. Fo you have any suggestion?
MTC-00010242
From: DONALD L STEELE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get off Microsofts back. This action was only taken because
competitors were upset.
Donald L:. Steele
[[Page 25279]]
MTC-00010243
From: dmath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
We are at war as a country why do we have to have war within
against an ali and a contributor to our country. Microsoft is a
great company that provided we the consumer with an excellent
product. Due to a few whiners/ competitors you the government took
up a law suit that has benefited none. Settle this case and stop the
stupidity!
Lynette Matheson
MTC-00010244
From: Phil Bassett
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 12:31 pm
Subject: Settle Microsoft case January11 .doc>> Philip H. Bassett
January 11, 2002 Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department
of Justice 601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530
Dear MS. Hesse:
As a citizen of Washington State, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the antitrust case involving Microsoft.
This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were
not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be trusted
to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false assertion. The
Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim that sent the
parties into litigation--the Department of Justice claim that
Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. Furthermore, this
settlement takes the extraordinary step of creating an onsite
oversight body. There are, therefore, no legitimate grounds for an
assertion that a consent decree will not constrain Microsoft's
behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court. In my view, there
can be no valid objection to this settlement because every major
finding of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed with a
targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and prevents the
behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business would be applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Philip H. Bassett
MTC-00010245
From: George Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please proceed carefully with regard to the Microsoft
settlement. The past has shown that Microsoft will not follow
guidelines that have no enforcement, and will also exploit any
limitations or loopholes that are present. Please ensure that
competition is restored to the computer industry. Consumers need to
be able to choose the best product for their needs, not the only
product available.
Our country has been based upon fair play and equal opportunity.
Let's not give up those values now.
Thank you for your time,
George Wagner
Computers, Support, & Consulting
6015 Glenbeigh Drive
Sylvania, OH 43560
(419) 882-0472
FAX (419) 882-0253
MTC-00010246
From: Jeffrey Doyle
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General,
I strongly oppose Massachusetts' involvement in trying to alter
the proposed Microsoft settlement.
Stop listening to competitors who are avoiding the truth.
Jeff Doyle
Sonexis
70 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110
(p) 617.531.8072
(f) 617.897.7898
[email protected]
www.sonexis.com
MTC-00010247
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Honorable Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Attorney General of the State of Iowa, Thomas Miller, JD,
has suggested that I forward to your office my thoughts on the above
case with respect to the DOJ objective (2), i.e. ``to spark
competition in this industry''.
I am a recently retired engineering professor, with earlier
experience in computers & electronics at Collins Radio Company,
Cedar Rapids, IA and as Chairman of the Electrical & Computer
Engineering Department at the University of New Mexico--and listed
in Who's Who in America. With respect to the pending Microsoft
antitrust case, I would like to offer my support for long-needed
competition in the design of better and more open computer operating
systems.
Forty-five years ago with the help of a well qualified
engineering team I developed, with approval and cooperation from the
Cedar Rapids IBM office, a computer operating system specialized to
handle the mathematical equations routinely used by scientists and
engineers like those at Collins. The key to its long string of
successes was IBM's permission to study the detailed ``innards'' of
their business machine processor & storage hardware, to enable the
development of an optimized (and easy to use) set of simple links to
the outside world. In all of the years elapsed since then, I have
not seen an operating system of comparable capability and
simplicity--even with the subsequent major improvements in hardware
speed, memory, printers, telelinks, and mouse-controlled displays. A
few software companies, under Microsoft Windows restrictions, have
tried to produce mathematically adequate programs for equation
computations, graphical plotting, and scientific text composition--
but in my view they all lack user flexibility and are clumsy to use.
For example, for years in Windows, to even shut OFF the machine
you have to press START, press SHUT DOWN, press OK. And you cannot
even delete the ``MSN Internet Access'' icon advertising Microsoft.
I have been unable to find any mathematical capability above the
level of simple (and
[[Page 25280]]
clumsy) arithmetic. The add-on called Visual Basic is totally
inadequate in my judgment. Also, real privacy and security on the
internet are fictional. Cookies and unapproved sales of your
interest profile should be outlawed--no one should be able to load
anything into your machine without your specific approval of the
text in advance every time. Almost any software specialist could
quickly remedy these and other defects if he or she could have open
access to the programming code at the fundamental chip level.
In order to foster the commercial competition necessary for the
evolution of new ideas in operating system software, I believe that
any settlement with Microsoft should require a COMPLETELY stripped
down operating system that makes it easy for anyone to develop his
or her own way of handling equations, data, text, graphs, pictures,
sound, and interfaces to lab bench equipment. This would quickly
clear out the impediments to the development of new economic growth
in the computer hardware and software markets. For example, if
linked to a simplified ``open book'' Windows operating system, an
improved-and-flexibilized version of the True Basic compute & plot
system developed years ago at Dartmouth would in my opinion result
in rapidly expanding markets in science, engineering, and education.
Thank you for considering my rather elementary contribution.
After all these years I am still hoping for a remedy that does more
than simply resolving the current internet-access problem.
Victor W. Bolie, PhD
4440 Morris Street NE # 334
Albuquerque NM 87111
MTC-00010248
From: Golden, Steve
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 7026 Via Ostiones Carlsbad, CA 92009-
6614 January 11, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department
of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The antitrust lawsuit leveled against Microsoft by the Federal
Government was completely unfounded and totally unjustified.
However, since a settlement was reached between the parties, it
should be accepted and finalized by the courts as soon as the public
comment period ends.
I personally feel the main tenets of the settlement go too far,
are not fair to Microsoft and hurt the ideals of free enterprise and
capitalism. Microsoft could easily go on fighting this thing out in
the courts for years. However, Microsoft has very nobly agreed to
accept and abide by the terms of the settlement instead of wasting
millions of taxpayer dollars in round after round of court battle
with the Federal Government.
For all intents and purposes the Federal Government won this
case and should be very pleased with the outcome. The fact that
Microsoft will now be forced to grant computer makers broad new
rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software
programs that compete with programs included in Windows is proof
that the Federal Government has met its objective. Additionally,
Microsoft will be forced to document and disclose its various
interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating system products--
a first in an antitrust settlement.
Furthermore, Microsoft must make available to its competitors
any protocols implemented in Windows' operating system products that
are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft server
operating system. Finally, Microsoft has agreed to a three-person
Technical Committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with
the settlement and assist with dispute resolution. The government
did the same thing to Bell Telephone Company back in the late 1970%.
The results were tragic and I fear that the government did not take
into account the future impact and this too will have a tragic
effect on technology and the entire world. It appears that the
Federal Government, at taxpayer's expense, won't stand for progress
and will do everything it can to penalize or destroy the guy ``out
front,'' such is the case with Microsoft. Microsoft has transformed
the face of the planet for the better and should be left alone once
and for all. Please finalize this settlement as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steven Golden
MTC-00010249
From: Rich and Bonnie DiBlasi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:07pm
Subject: abuse
stop the foolishness already . . . leave micro.alone to go about
the business of making the econ. strong again. . . .
rich d.
MTC-00010250
From: randy ellis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it concerns
I feel as a consumer that I May be able to purchase a product
such as a computer, that I should be able to have certain choices of
what is loaded onto my computer, application or operating system.
It's bad business when I Buy a car, that I do not have a choice of
interior or exterior colors, Options like A/C, P/W, P/L, sunroof,
etc. I do have a choice to goto another manafacturer. but when there
is shadey dealings going on that a manufactuer cannot offer dual
boot operating systems or a choice, that the consumers get left out,
as well hurt small business such as (Be inc.) Which I think was
greatly harmed by microsoft, and Be's Operating System being a
breakthrough before Microsoft's and Apple's recent released
Operating Systems. I currently use it now, and have been using it
for a couple of years. I think it is absolutely the best Operating
System avaliable and will never stop using it. However I do have to
use my Windows98SE for somethings due to limited drivers, largely
due to Microsoft's monolpoly, (because the company's fail to write
the driver's because they know Microsoft rules the market). I would
like to see the BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but
there is no hope of success if the following issues aren't
addressed: examples: open Office file formats, Win32 APIs, make
dual-boot options mandatory, etc . . . ''
Thankyou
Randy
MTC-00010251
From: gclemen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Approval of the Microsoft Settlement will clear the way for
continued growth in an industry that has completely stalled out over
the past 3 years. It should be obvious to you by now that
Microsoft's innovations in software drive the rest of the industry
to produce more and better hardware and software products. Without
that drive, the entire industry languishes for lack of direction,
which is where we have all been lately.
The release of Windows XP is a good start toward recovery. I am
using the product and have to say that Microsoft has some work to do
to get it into the mainstream market. Nevertheless, any new
operating system creates opportunities for other innovative products
which either address the new problems caused by the new Microsoft
product or take advantage of the new capabilities offered by the new
Microsoft product. In all cases, the release will spur competitors
to develop new products. Notice that while the case was ongoing and
no great innovative MS products hit the market, no other competitors
emerged from the background to take the lead. The entire industry
just sat on the sidelines.
I say Lets Get On With It! Approve the Settlement and let the
market do what it is going to do. There are plenty of discerning
software users who will give Microsoft a hard time about their
products without the government involved.
Margaret Felts
MTC-00010252
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please drop this case and let this company continue to serve the
people. It has a good business record, and just because it is a rich
company should not be prosecuted according to the desires of others.
Let them make their millions, and serve the computer age.
Wilda I. Dixon
Rockledge, Florida 32955
MTC-00010253
From: Laurence Lewitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of
Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to urge you and your office to allow the recent
court settlement with Microsoft to stand on its own merits. I
[[Page 25281]]
strongly believe that the original antitrust litigation was a total
farce and completely unnecessary. It appears that the government is
persecuting successful corporations at the behest of the company's
competitors. That is WRONG.
The settlement is a fair one and was reasonably negotiated over
an over extended period of time. The agreement contains provisions
that maintain Microsoft's accountability to the industry and,
unfortunately, the to government as well. Microsoft will share
information about the internal interfaces of Windows with its
competitors, enabling them to more easily place their own software
on the operating system.
In addition to the state support for the settlement, there are
too many important national priorities that need your attention,
beyond the continued review of a successful business entity. With
the ongoing war, a destabilized national economy and a faltering
international political environment, I would hope you would allow
this settlement to move forward and concentrate on the bigger more
important picture.
Very truly yours,
Laurence G. Lewitt,
69 The Circle,
Glen Head, N.Y. 11545
MTC-00010254
From: Dave Hedger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
I, like most people who use computers, feel like the antitrust
lawsuit against Microsoft was not well-founded from the start.
Consumers have in fact benefited greatly from Microsoft and their
Windows software. The lawsuit was initiated by disgruntled and
jealous competitors, and joined by states who, like sharks, smelled
blood in the water. The whole fiasco was a great perturbation in the
economy, and contributed significantly to the bursting of the
technology bubble and bear market that followed. Now it's time to
admit the mistake and move on. Continuing the lawsuit is only
prolonging the recovery, as investors nationwide await the result.
My advice is to consummate the negotiated settlement hammered out
between Microsoft and the DOJ. Do the USA a favor: let's move on.
Dave Hedger
MTC-00010255
From: Rob Steinbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:37pm
Subject: About the proposed barring deposition disclosure for
Microsoft
Dear Sirs:
If Microsoft was to get their way, allowing pretrial depositions
to be prevented from public disclosure, then I think it would be a
disservice to the entire justice system.
I was taught in childhood that nearly the entire American
justice process was supposed to be open, with some notable
exceptions, not secret courts that effectively prevent defense, or
prosecution, of the defendant.
I don't believe that Microsoft's pretrial depositions fall into
one of these exceptions. Since very little of the depositions will
deal with actual trade secrets, then I don't see how Microsoft could
reasonably expect the judge to uphold their requests.
I urge that the judge consider the nature of the request and
keep in mind the need for the most open trial she can have, as
permitted by law and common sense.
Sincerely,
Rob Steinbach
Programmer/Analyst
Ideal Chemical and Supply, Co.
4025 Air Park Street
Memphis, TN 38118
MTC-00010256
From: Paul Nendick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I'm a computer software engineering professional and am
concerned by Microsoft's monopoly in my field of business. Their
business practices, corporate ethos and products all threaten the
Freedom of Speech.
The lynchpin for this is the popular Microsoft Word file format.
Word (and other Microsoft Office) files trap each and every thought
expressed in them by storing them in a proprietary, binary file
format.
Only Microsoft products can correctly and consistently decipher
these and no other software products can or ever will be able to do
this. Microsoft has gone to great lengths to obscure and incorrectly
document these file formats. Each word and thought expressed in
these formats is a prisoner to Microsoft's future whimsy. Today
these file formats cost no money to view, but will they in the
future? Can we take this sort of risk?
I have personally investigated these issues as have hundreds of
other programmers and we have all come to the same conclusion--
Microsoft Office is and always will be the only software that can
use these files.
There is a good discussion of this matter found here: http://
www.newsforge.com/article.pl
To illustrate the importance of open standard formats for
information exchange in binary formats such as these, one need look
no further than the Internet for a shining example. I can use a
Macintosh to view a webpage servered on a Sun server written by a
Linux user. All this communication occurs flawlessly over a myriad
different vendors' hardware. If Microsoft had understood the
Internet better in it's formative stages, I'm certain we would not
enjoy the remarkable open forum for ideas that the Internet is
today.
A possible solution to this matter is to require Microsoft to
fully support open, standard file formats for each of it's products.
These formats can readily be designed in the same environment that
forged the standards that hold the Internet together (IEEE) or the
formats designed by the open source OpenOffice using the open XML
specifications could be chosen: http://xml.openoffice.org/
In addition to making Microsoft support such a format(s), I
believe it would be beneficial for the Justice department to
recommend that the version of file format decided upon be the
standard format used by the US government for its electronic
document publishing.
If you like me to elaborate on these or any related issues,
please contact me at this email address or at my home:
Paul Nendick
1420 West Fulton #2
Chicago, IL 60607
Sincerely,
Paul Nendick
MTC-00010257
From: Jeffrey Liang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I applaud you for your settlement with Microsoft. The settlement
is fair and in the consumers' best interests.
Microsoft may dominate the desktop market, but the PC is no
longer the paradigm for computing. Thus, the anti-trust case has
become almost a moot point. Government intervention would have
undoubtedly shaken the software industry. In a time of economic
uncertainty, drastic remedies may not be the best medicine.
As a software engineer, I may not like Microsoft. But I approve
of your settlement nonetheless. Thank you for you efforts.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Liang
203 E 31st St Apt 306
Austin, TX 78705
MTC-00010258
From: Myles J. Swift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear DOJ,
I want to put in my two cents on the Microsoft case. We are a
small software developer. Never has any company other than Microsoft
provided so much help to an industry. When CD players were new and
very expensive, Microsoft sold thousands of them to developers at a
loss to start the CD market. When voice systems started to come in
they did the same thing. They practically gave away what were $500
to $600 boards to get people started on voice programming.
Before Microsoft every computer manufacturer had a unique
format. Floppy disks would only play in one brand of machine.
Differing operating systems meant that we had to customize the
program for each brand of hardware. Our software retailed for $3,995
in 1982. A better product sells today for $1,000.
With the cost of living changes the price differential is at
least 8 to 1. Microsoft enabled the average end user of our products
to save $7,000 on the price of a program compared to what it would
cost without standards. This makes a case for how much Microsoft has
helped consumers.
If Microsoft made computers and did the complete bundle I could
see the merits of the case.
Right now Sun, Apple and IBM produce and sell these items
direct: operating systems, hardware, networking components and
applications. Microsoft sells operating
[[Page 25282]]
systems and applications. Microsoft products are less expensive
after distributor and retailer markup than the products sold direct
by the other companies.
If their products did not have a good price/performance ratio,
they would not succeed. I can see some merits in the case for how
they worked with large hardware manufacturers. I cannot see any case
for the public having been harmed. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Myles J. Swift
Computer Assistance Inc.
Creswell, OR 97426
auto/truck repair management
software since 1977
voice 541-895-3347
MTC-00010259
From: John R. Munn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/Madam;
I strongly oppose the DoJ proposed settlement with MicroSoft as
it does not address the core issues of marketing misconduct and anti
competitiveness. It will not result in a more competitive industry
nor even in a better product from MicroSoft.
As a 30+ year programmer and a user of MicroSoft products for
13+ years I know what I am talking about technically. MicroSoft
products are pretty and incorporate many innovative ideas (some
great in practice and some disastrous). However, the performance and
stability is such that if I had produced them and did not correct
the problems in short order I would, justifiably, be replaced. With
no significant market share competition, MicroSoft has no compelling
reason to improve their products beyond keeping them pretty for the
sales department with a new looking version periodically (without
ever fixing the underlying problems).
If I as a private citizen continually violated agreements with
the Justice Department (or any government agency) I would be jailed.
If there were a small business which violated the laws to the extent
that MicroSoft has it would be shut down and possibly have its
principals jailed. What would not happen is having an agreement
drawn up based on ``what can you say that you will do that will
sound like some action has been taken?''.
While I do not advocate the destruction of MicroSoft and am
ambivalent on it's breakup. I do know that effective (underlined)
action must be taken to 1) restrict future unlawful action on
MicroSoft's part, 2) some punitive steps for past misdeeds, and 3)
provide a competitive environment for the entire industry. The
current proposal addresses none of the foregoing effectively, if at
all.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
John R. Munn
Miami, FL 33157
MTC-00010260
From: Bud Levinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand that the Justice Dept. is taking public comments
reguarding the proposed settlement of the Microsoft monopoly case.
It is my opinion that the proposed settlement is probably about
as fair as it is going to get. I further feel it is in the intrerest
of our Country and of the consumers of Microsoft products to have
this controversy settled now--rather than to drag on for an
indefinite period.
So I am in favor of the Justice Dept. accepting the settlement
as it now stands.
Thank you for carefully considering my opinion.
Harold Levinger
1235 Yale Place
Minneapolis, MN 55403
MTC-00010261
From: Raymond Pettitt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Pettitt
808 Kennedy Ave.
Va. Beach, Va 23451-1142
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Pettitt
MTC-00010262
From: Alan Bargmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are a retired couple and use our computer daily. We don't
know of anyone that feels they have been harmed or cheated by
Microsoft. Their products are fairly priced and extremely well
designed. We were not brought up using a computer and are thankful
to Microsoft for making things so simple for us to learn and use.
Their customer service is provided without charge and is available
24/7 to swiftly help us with any problems that may occur. We are not
interested in having the DOJ support Microsoft competitors so they
can provide ``innovations'' that the market doesn't want or need.
Please support the current settlement and let Microsoft get on with
producing the fine products we need.
While we do not believe Microsoft is cheating consumers, we do
feel the oil companies are using their power to keep prices
unreasonable high and the DOJ could help consumers by investigating
their practices.
Sincerely,
Alan & Janet Bargmeyer
MTC-00010263
From: Steve Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 9199 S. Fox Fire Way Highlands Ranch,
Colorado 80126 January 11, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing first to congratulate you on reaching a settlement
in the Microsoft anti-trust case. I would like to see you make sure
this settlement is completed.
The settlement that was reached will create more competitiveness
in the IT industry. This settlement requires Microsoft to share both
internal interfaces and formerly secret code with competing software
firms. This means that the competitors will have unprecedented
access to Microsoft code and be able to compete as never before.
Those that claim this settlement is weak are simply wrong.
Full implementation of this settlement should be a priority for
your people.
I appreciate you taking time to consider my views on this issue.
Sincerely,
Steve Miller
MTC-00010264
From: Cottrill, Carole
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 2:37pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Antitrust Case January 11, 2002 Attorney General
John Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am a great believer in the American dream--working hard,
believing in yourself, pursuing something that is yours alone--and
the rewards that will result from these principles. Bill Gates,
through Microsoft, followed his dream and achieved more than anyone,
even probably him, believed possible. He has since been punished for
this by having to spend more than three years in court. Your office
too has faced hardship and expense in this case.
The Department of Justice brought an antitrust case against
Microsoft three years ago, charging monopolistic practices; i.e. his
products were too good; hence, people
[[Page 25283]]
bought too many, ignoring other firms' products. The case was
eventually settled, with Microsoft acquiescing to the Department of
Justice's demands, and satisfying many of Microsoft's competitors'
desires.
Microsoft will, for example, share software information with its
competitors and allow them to place their software on the Windows
operating system. Microsoft and the Department of Justice have made
an equitable settlement. The American people want to move on. I want
to see an end to federal action in this case, and the settlement is
the best option to end it.
Sincerely,
C. Cottrill
MTC-00010265
From: Terry Cornelisse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough! Take this settlement and move on!!!
Jim & Terry cornelisse
MTC-00010266
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the name of Justice, U.S. principals, and to stop wasting our
tax dollars please accept the settlement now,
George J. Deutsch,
5060 Key Largo Circle,
Punta Gorda, FL,33955
Dennis Whittaker 34
Jeweff Hill, Berkshire, NY 13736
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
950 Penna. Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing in support of the settlement with Microsoft. The
changes it requires will restore fair competition and prevent future
antitrust violations.
Microsoft has agreed to release the interfaces that make Windows
work with software applications to competitors, meaning that other
companies can figure out how to better write programs for Windows.
Naturally, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or
hardware developers who develop or promote software that take
advantage of this new information. Plus, Microsoft has agreed not to
enter into any agreements that force third parties to distribute any
Windows technology exclusively. Clearly, these restrictions will
benefit the consumers as well as the technology sector as a whole.
This settlement is in the best interests of the State of New
York, The U.S., and the economy because it will stop any
anticompetitive behavior before it starts. Continued litigation
against Microsoft will put millions of dollars into a case that has
already seen a fair and reasonable end.
Let the IT industry concentrate on business as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Dennis Whittaker
MTC-00010267
From: Adam Shostack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice:
Doubtless you will get a large number of long, complex comments
regarding this case. I'll keep this to the point.
I have read through the many documents in the US vs Microsoft
case, and I am disappointed and concerned about the weakness of the
proposed remedies. Microsoft has violated the spirit and the letter
of the law. The proposed settlement does not sufficiently penalize
them, control or limit their behavior, or deter them from future
anti-competitive acts. Please ensure that the case results in a
substantiative penalty, and imposes strong controls on Microsoft's
future activity.
Yours,
Adam Shostack
MTC-00010268
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
this article below shows that MSFT has peddled for favors from
President Bush on down to congressmen, and Attorney General
Ashcroft...... if you approve this settlement, you will be flying in
the face of the Tunney ACT..... please consider what you are doing,
this settlement does nothing to keep MSFT from violating the law....
it doesn't even address all eight of the findings of the appeals
court...... please use your power to stop this blight on
justice......
Microsoft Fails To Disclose Congressional Lobbying
By Robyn Weisman, www.NewsFactor.com
According to several legal experts mentioned in news reports,
Microsoft ( Nasdaq: MSFT--news) failed to inform federal judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that it lobbied members of Congress in
relation to its ongoing antitrust case. Court filings reveal only
that Microsoft contacted members of the executive branch of the
federal government, not anyone in Congress, despite reports to
Congress that the company spent US$300,000 on lobbying in the first
half of 2001 alone.
AT&T Didn't; Why Should We?
Defending itself against the allegations, Microsoft contended
that AT&T, when it was embroiled in its own antitrust case in the
early 1980s, also failed to inform its federal judge of its lobbying
actions toward Congress, despite a 1974 statute that requires
companies to do so.
That statute, known as the Tunney Act, was designed to prevent
companies like Microsoft and the old AT&T from peddling favors to
government employees in exchange for more leniency.
jon.
MTC-00010269
From: Billie Love
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justices:
The people of the United States have had to fund this
prosecution against Microsoft. I think the settlement that has been
reached is in the best interest of the people. Please don't let any
of the State Attorney Genereals continue this litigation. I support
the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to settle this
litigation.
Billie Love
8665 Springhill School Rd.
Belgrade, Mt. 59714
MTC-00010270
From: Allen Wiesen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department and
nine states reflects a reasoned approach to remediation of market
inequities. We fully support the settlement, and are disappointed
that the remaining nine states have not yet seen the obvious merits
of the agreement.
Dr. and Mrs. Allen E. Wiesen,
Sarasota, FL
MTC-00010271
From: Rodger Sorenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The purpose of this message is to let you know that I support an
immediate settlement of the Microsoft case without any further
delays and/or litigation. This issue has dragged out too long to the
benefit of nobody except the lawyers and it needs to be closed as
soon as possible. This is America-lets treat our innovative
companies like Microsoft like we appreciate what they have done for
our country.
Thank you,
Rodger D. Sorenson,
5370 W. Flying Circle,
Tucson, AZ 85713.
MTC-00010272
From: Dwight A. Ernest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:02pm
Subject: Comments in Microsoft v. US Gov To whom it may concern,
Here are my comments in the matter of Microsoft v. US
Government:
The proposed settlement does not sufficiently penalize
Microsoft, nor does it sufficiently control or limit their behavior,
nor deter them from future anti-competitive acts. Please ensure that
the case results in a substantive penalty, and imposes strong
controls on Microsoft's future activity.
Yours most sincerely,
--Dwight A. Ernest
Internet Engineering Manager
551 Main Street
Boylston MA 01505-1313
[email protected]
Phone: 508.826.7335
MTC-00010273
From: William G. Wizner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William G. Wizner
8544 Stone Harbor Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89145-5707
January 11, 2002
[[Page 25284]]
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
William G. Wizner
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to voice my concern on the recent events behind the
Microsoft Antitrust case. I am against any further government
action. What I do not understand is the punishing of Microsoft for
producing a quality product. Under our system of free enterprise, we
are free to purchase and use any computer products we wish. It just
so happens that Microsoft has created far better products than other
competing companies have been able to.
Can you imagine that use of the Internet by ordinary citizens
would have been possible without a common platform for
communications? In addition to the superior software Microsoft has
created, the company has created a niche in the marketplace that in
the past decade has brought a huge amount of growth to our economy,
not to mention the standardization of computer software programs
that have allowed computerization to become part of everyday life.
As an investment portfolio manager, I represent clients who have
invested hard-earned savings into American companies like Microsoft
whose financial success benefited ordinary Americans willing to
invest in these companies. The additional litigation risk to
shareholders has risen dramatically in this country as tort lawyers,
including state Attorneys General, seek deep corporate pockets. It
is no coincidence that the peak in our financial markets coincided
with the Justice Department's announcement in March 3000 that it
would seek to break up Microsoft.
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights
to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs.
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to make it
easier for non-Microsoft software to be installed within Windows,
and Microsoft has even agreed to a technical committee to monitor
future compliance. I doubt if other firms would do as much. It is
shameful that companies like Microsoft should be punished for their
success-whatever happened to the American dream? I urge you to
support this settlement.
Sincerely,
Renee Smith
MTC-00010274
From: Donald Phillippi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Phillippi
4 Sand Island Acc. Road #40
Honolulu, Hi 96819-4355
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Phillippi
MTC-00010275
From: bdouglas@hamakua. Central.Sun.COM@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:02pm
Subject: Paragraph 24 -27
To whom it may concern,
Reference paragraphs 24--27 I would like to comment. Three years
ago I tried to buy a PC from Dell and did not want windows. I went
to their web site and found what I wanted. So I called up Dell and
asked if I could buy the PC without Windows and at first they said
no but then agreed to. I then inquired about the price without
Windows and it was the same as with Windows. It was explained to me
by one of the sales persons that Dell was forced by Microsoft to
sell a Windows license with every PC, regardless if the OS was every
installed or used. So not only do they tie I.E. and other
applications to the PC but the OS as well.
Bob Douglas
303 475-2769
MTC-00010276
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/11/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms Hesse:
I would like to express my opposition to the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft Antitrust case. I believe that the offense against
the American version of doing business and against the American
people is far to great for the DoJ to treat it in this fashion. I
believe that the points raised by the Attorneys General of the
various dissenting states are far more pertinent than those of the
DoJ. While the Court of Appeals vacated a portion of the original
judgment, they retained all the conclusions relating to Microsoft's
exclusionary and anti-competitive acts. I believe the proposed
settlement treats these acts too lightly.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Salus, Ph.D.
MTC-00010277
From: Marla Araki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to
[[Page 25285]]
state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be immense.
The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an
order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the court
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's
liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely addresses
each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, and does so
with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of violation
addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible access to
Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marla Araki
John Priebe
MTC-00010278
From: jordan pollack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:14pm
Subject: ms settlement
I am opposed to the settlement. Your agreement helps Dell,
Compaq, IBM, HP, Gateway, etc, the sellers of computers who have had
to deal with Microsoft's favoritism and capriciousness in pricing
over the years, and it perhaps helps application vendors who want to
preserve interoperation across microsoft's upgrades (like
wordperfect (dead), Lotus (dead) Netscape (dead) Real (almost dead)
Palm (almost dead).
But I believe that as long as Microsoft can dictate when and how
much an upgrade costs for what has become a public standard like the
electric or telephone socket, the nation will continue to be
fleeced. Your settlement does nothing here.
If it were simply made illegal for the vendor or a proven
monopoly product to charge for an upgrade, the vendor could not
profit from bundle in clones of competitive products like outlook,
explorer, mediaplayer etc, expecting to get their fee from forced
upgrades and market capture. They would have to compete more fairly
against unbundled goods. And, instead of monopoly in every area of
software through competitive upgrades, secret formats for files, we
would arrive through evolution of competition at public standards
for fle formats (like word and html and poperpoint) and oligarchies
on user interface (like wordstar, wordperfect, and word, all working
on the same files, or Powerpoint, Freelance, and Persuasion, working
on the same presentation format!) Finally, the old licenses on
junked computers (with appropriate certification) would become
valuable in trade instead of worthless.
If you do fail to close this agreement, please read http://
jordanpollack.com/softwaremarket for a free market solution.
Professor Jordan B. Pollack
Dynamic & Evolution Machine Org
Computer Science Department
FaxPhone/Lab: 781-736-2713/3366
MS018, Brandeis University
http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu
Waltham Massachusetts 02454
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00010279
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:21pm
Subject: A monopoly by any other name...
Hello,
I'd like to voice my dissatisfaction over the United States v.
Microsoft Settlement. I do not feel that the proposed actions will
do anything to stop Microsoft from wielding their monopoly power.
Every time there is a new release of the product, you see companies
crushed.
Unless Microsoft is broken into separate companies (OS, Browser,
Word Processing, Spreadsheet) they will continue use Company A's
technology in one release, stifle them, and then do what they wish
in the next release (like the Kodak issue going on in XP).
I think what was agreed upon is less than a slap on their wrist
and more of a slap in the face of the consumer. Through monopoly
power and extortion (which is still against the law, isn't it?) ,
they nearly crushed Netscape. Have you ever wondered what happened
to the Lotus Suite? It wasn't an inferior product that succumbed to
superior product.
Furthermore, why should I be FORCED to pay an additional $99 for
a computer that has MS Windows loaded on it? I want to run Linux. I
should not be forced into paying for something that I do not want.
Thank you,
John Borger
MTC-00010280
From: Roger Rush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General
Please see my comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement
Sincerely,
Roger Rush
Network Source One
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am very glad about Microsoft not being split up by the federal
government. As president of a network service provider company that
depends on standardization, continuity, and reliability, I believe
if Microsoft had been broken up requiring me to utilize 3 to 5
different companies for my needs, doing business would be very
difficult. This is because things would no longer be one hundred
percent compatible.
Microsoft's operating system is a seamless product and is very
easy to work with, which allows my company to operate smoothly. To
suddenly be forced by the government to alter this system would,
quite simply, be extremely strenuous.
I understand some of Microsoft's original adversaries are
against the settlement and are trying very hard to disrupt it before
the court can finalize it. I suppose this is due to the fact that
the government did not break up Microsoft. These entities will not
be satisfied and probably will not give up their relentless pursuit
until it is. This is unfortunate, because the settlement is totally
fair. For example, Microsoft will change its licensing agreements
with companies, and redesign Windows operating systems to make non-
Microsoft features more accessible. I only hope it is finalized as
soon as possible and that you do everything within your power to see
that it is. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Roger Rush
President
MTC-00010281
From: Geudner, Michael A (Michael)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:34pm
Subject: WAY TO GO- MICROSOFT IS A MONOPOLY THAT SHOULD BE BROKEN
UP!
MTC-00010282
From: Harry Bardal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25286]]
Dear Madam
I have watched the Micrsosoft antitrust trial with great
interest. As a Canadian citizen I have been somewhat frustrated at
my governments reluctance to act on what I believe to be Microsoft's
anticompetitive practices. The ball seems to be in the court of the
American justice system and my hope is that a fair remedy is found.
I have used Microsoft's products and continue to, many are useful
business tools. I do feel however that their business practices have
been predatory and unfair to smaller businesses trying to compete in
an already cutthroat industry. Although Microsoft succeeds in
establishing standards that channel and consolidate computer usage
and facilitate communication, the standards always proprietary and
always seem to be vertically integrated with other Microsoft
products. Perhaps more regrettably, these standards are often
substandard. A phrase heard often in my area of business is
``Microsoft Lock-in'' It refers to the inability to use third party
software in concert with Microsoft products. This combined with real
virus problems and rather egregious security flaws makes many
Microsoft products a necessary evil for many people even in the face
of superior competing products.
I have seen some intelligent, well designed software try to
compete with the Microsoft dominance and fail. Microsoft has
expressed it needs to be allowed to innovate. Few Microsoft are
truly innovative or remarkable and yet Microsoft's practices have
quelled or absorbed other companies that have innovated. The
technology sector has been a driving force in the American economy
and by extension the Canadian economy and it deserves some scrutiny.
I believe that personal computers are the single most important
tool of our age. They are the first example of true multi-use and
not single-use technology. Many companies will have something to
offer as the industry matures. I hope these companies might dare to
innovate, compete and contribute to the Microsoft line of operating
systems as well as Linux, Mac OS, Unix and dozens of other variants.
I hope that this is is allowed to flourish in a atmosphere of fair
competition.
Regards
Harry Bardal
Vancouver, BC
MTC-00010283
From: Bill York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Upon hearing about the solutions for the settlement in the
Microsoft case I was appalled to hear that a company that has
committed so many grievous acts against other smaller corporations
would be handed so light a sentence.
Perhaps the one part of the settlement that disturbs me the most
is the fact that Microsoft donate $1 billion in refurbished
computers and software to schools to use. While at first glance this
may seem like a very noble cause in truth this settlement enables
Microsoft to leverage their monopoly even more.
What will happen is that the refurbished computers will consist
of PC's and the software will be Microsoft based software.
Now being a software engineer myself I'm very well acquainted
with the business model when it comes to producing software. There
is an initial large cost up front for the design, development, and
testing of the software. But once this cost has been fulfilled and
the software developed the costs associated with mass producing the
software, often involving copying the software code to a CD,
printing of any manuals, and then the boxing and shipping of the
product are relatively inexpensive. Using this cycle it is fairly
easy for Microsoft to refurbish the cost of the initial investment.
But because of this methodology they can easily produce a billion
dollars worth of software and yet barely have their bottom line
impacted because of the cheap costs associated with producing the
CD, manuals, and packaging.
If you truly want to penalize Microsoft then make them pay $1
billion dollars to be distributed to the school systems so they can
spend the money how they see fit. These individual school districts
can then go out and purchase a non-PC devices and software produced
by other companies than Microsoft. This is in turn will help foster
competition and will come much closer to realizing the goals of this
antitrust lawsuit in the first place.
Thank you for reading,
William York
P.S. The comments sent to the Dept of Justice does NOT reflect
my employer's opinion and is solely my own opinion.
William York
1254 Bluebird St.
Brighton, CO 80601
MTC-00010284
From: mmikowsk@demai05.mw.mediaone.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
As I have not received a validation from my prior posting, I
again respectfully submit this proposal:
I am currently an owner of an Information Systems and software
development firm. Based my firm's experience in this field, I
propose the following adjustments to the Microsoft settlement:
1. PROPOSAL A
a. OVERVIEW
The US Government (and other governments) should embrace open
standards for file formats for commodity applications such as Word
Processing, Spreadsheets, Database, Graphics, and Mail.
b. PROPOSED ACTIONS
* A national or international standards committee be formed to
oversee commodity file formats, much like the W3C.
* Formats be developed for Word processing, Spreadsheets,
Database, Graphics, and Mail.
* These formats should be based on open, published standards
that can only be extended through the committee.
* The US government adopt these standards as required for
governmental correspondence.
* Software producers must show their tools are compatible with
these standards before government agencies employ them.
* Software producers should be encouraged to publish their
compliance to these standards.
c. REASONING
Microsoft's monopoly on the business desktop is not derived from
its innate value of its operating systems, but by its anti-
competative use of its monopoly to control proprietary formats used
in commodity applications.
Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, and others employ proprietary
formats controlled, and changed at will, by the company. Any attempt
to use other tools to access or edit this data are hamstrung
Microsofts propensity to change these formats at its whim. This is
the core of its anti-competative practices.
Microsoft has shown a pattern of first embracing competing
formats (such as WordPerfect, and Lotus 1-2-3) and, once market
dominance has been ensured, have emphasized their own proprietary
formats. This is a trend they have continued to this day. One only
need to look at how their ``extensions'' of HTML standards are
currently being used to block access from any other platform besides
their own. In the past, we wrote on paper. There are hundreds of
producers of pens and paper. Today, we often write in word
processors and spreadsheets. Should only one company in the world
control the access to the intellectual property we create? d.
IMPLEMENTATION The technology and software already exists to move
this proposal to a reality in a very short time period. The US
Government could change to open file formats with little pain by
employing Star Office while saving untold millions in licensing
costs. It can require all html document meet the W3C guidelines for
HTML. The government would provide the impetus from moving its data,
and that of the people, out from under the control of a private
interest, and into open formats where we the people can access our
own data without being required to purchase a Microsoft product to
do so. e. REFERENCES Open File Formats: http://
www.computerworld.com/cwi/community/story/0,3201,NAV65-1797--
STO64689,00.html Star Office, which employs open, XML formats with
excellent capabilities: http://www.sun.com/staroffice/6.0beta/
;$sessionid$ROHKZK4E1MJ0RAMTA1FU3NQ The W3C group has provided
standards which has allowed dozens of competing web browsers to be
successfully developed:
http://www.w3.org
Anyware Office, which employs XML-like file formats in a product
which works extremely well
Anyware Office: http://www.vistasource.com/products/anyware/
office/
f. DISCLAIMER We own Microsoft Office Professional. We manage
dozens of Microsoft OS's and Office products. We have tested (and
are impressed) with Star Office. We also use Anywhere Office in an
office of 5 individuals. We have no other connection
[[Page 25287]]
with the companies or software presented above.
2. PROPOSAL B
a. OVERVIEW
The proposed settlement for providing Microsoft access to our
children's and educators' minds is counter-productive to the good of
the people and the government.
b. PROPOSED ACTIONS
* Require any software provided to US schools to be compliant
with the requirements as set forth in Proposal A of this comment.
* Adjust the settlement so that Microsoft is responsible for
providing hardware and funding only.
* Provide an independent body for determining the software and
training employed by the schools.
c. REASONING
The proposed settlement to provide Microsoft software and
training only further benefits the company, while displacing other
firms such as Apple and RedHat. By taking the proposed value and
applying it to hardware and funding only, the public is ensured to
receive the value offered by Microsoft.
d. IMPLEMENTATION
I have no additional recommendations for implementation of this
remedy at this time.
e. REFERENCES
The RedHat Counter Offer:
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press--
usschools.html
f. DISCLOSURE
We own Microsoft Windows 2000 and Mandrake Linux. We use RedHat
Linux as our OS for web service development.
These are fair adjustments to the proposed settlement. They will
provide innovative competition the like of which the industry has
never seen.
I am available for discussion of these remedies at any time.
Respectfully Submitted
26 November 2001
Michael S. Mikowski
Managing Director, Uniphied Thought LLC
Dearborn, MI 48126
Tel 313-441-2579
Mobile 313-550-8406
CC:[email protected]
MTC-00010285
From: MCMICHAEL, Ron (AAS)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 3:42pm
Subject: LET THE SCHOOLS HAVE THEIR COMPUTERS
MTC-00010286
From: carrol townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:58pm
Subject: MY OPINION
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT THINKS THAT THE PRICE OF
PRODUCT SUCH AS DELIVERED BY MICROSOFT WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE IF
BETTER
CONTROLLED BY THE FEDS. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE SAME ARGUMENT
WITH THE BREAKUP OF THE BELL SYSTEM.
THE US GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PICK A BETTER FIGHT, ONE THAT COULD
HELP RATHER THAN HINDER.
MTC-00010287
From: Ulstad, Gary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 3:59pm
Subject: Stop beating them up.
It is nice to have them providing jobs and paying income tax in
the United States. I do not know about you but, I like US companies
leading the world.
Gary Ulstad
MTC-00010288
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft and the State of Washington
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case. These objections ignore the decision of the
Appeals Court that reversed much of Judge Jackson's original
findings. The Appeals Court threw out findings on many fronts
related to Microsoft's anti-monopolistic behavior. One key area
rejected was the basis used for claiming that integrating Internet
Explorer and Windows represented monopoly abuse. The court went
further to state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be
immense. The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear
such an order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the
court ``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's
liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely addresses
each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, and does so
with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of violation
addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible access to
Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas A. Joki,
Mill Creek, WA
MTC-00010289
From: Chuck Burr
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think that this entire law suit is only because a few
companies did not want competition and got in bed with the last
administration. That aside, the Justice Department worked out a
settlement that would help many children in this country. To give
millions of people a few dollars is not an impact and by the time
that money would get to the same poor schools it would be ten cents
on the dollar. We need to move forward in this country and it is
things like this Judge's ruling that will put this country into a
real depression. I say move forward. This decision disapoints me, I
know the Justice spent millions of our tax money to get here and now
will spend even more if it has to go forward in a different
direction....
Chuck Burr
Franchise Principal
Accountants Inc. Reno, NV
``Focused on Accounting and Financial Talent''
www.accountantsinc.com
MTC-00010290
From: Joseph Gregory
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Gregory
11 Valley, Lane
[[Page 25288]]
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18707-1735
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Joseph Gregory
MTC-00010291
From: Justin Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:07pm
Personally, I think that all of this bullshit against Microsoft
is ridiculously absurd. The only reason that the company is getting
sued is because other incompetent people or businesses can't compete
with the best in the business. Fuck all of you, jealousy is a sin,
Bill Gates started Microsoft with no believers and now he's on top
of the world and everyone wants a slice of his pie....yea, more
money, more problems for Mr. Gates. Leave the man and his company
alone, they have done wonders for the world of technology and just
because he has what everyone else doesn't assholes wanna take it
away from him....Pardon the swearing, but it's just another thing
that is corrupted in this whole fucked up world that isn't run by
leaders, or the people, but by the necessary evil called money. It's
also good that all of the matters are being handled by the ongoing
joke called the justice system...you won't beat Bill Gates, he's
just gonna laugh at all of you stupid fucks from his position that,
no matter how much you sue him, you will never attain. Have a great
day.
MTC-00010292
From: hord, george
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft the Giant with the Battle Axe
To Whom it Concerns;
My primary thoughts are:
1) Microsoft has some allies because Microsoft helped them
become rich by proving coat tails for the loyal or obedient.
2) Microsoft has CRUSHED or rendered non existent any will to
compete because of their marketing practices.
3) There has never been a question about ability to innovate--
Microsoft has never been or wanted to be the innovator, just the
crusher. Let someone else lead and then CRUSH. Microsoft has ALWAYS
copied technology or bought it, never innovated.
4) Microsoft should be given absolute guidelines/mandate on what
is operating system software what is internet software and what is
application software. If USDOJ cannot do that then set up an
independent panel that makes the decisions.
George Hord
MTC-00010293
From: Wesley Harrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To whom it may concern,
I wish to register my opinion regarding the proposed Microsoft
settlement. In short, I disagree with the provisions of the
settlement, and I believe the current proposal lacks any real
punishment to a company that has been found guilty in the past, as
well as in the present case, and if unchecked will act in a similar
manner in the future. A just settlement would include, but are not
limited to, some of the items I list below.
1. Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the
computer. Only then could competition come to exist in a meaningful
way.
2. The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface, which is already
part of the proposed settlement.
3. Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
4. No settlement should include free Microsoft software to
schools, or other needy organizations. This does nothing to decrease
Microsoft's control over the computer market, and in fact increases
their market share.
Regards,
Wesley Harrell
232 NW 4th Ave
Gainesville, FL 32601
MTC-00010294
From: Peter Lewandowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:16pm
Subject: I thought this was a monopoly investigation?
If Microsoft is a monopoly the main task should be to stop
Microsoft from being a monopoly, if they are not then just leave
them alone. If you go to McDonalds are they not allowed to sell
Pepsi products, or Taco Bell sell Coke? Even if it's a franchise
most are required by the agreement to sell one or the other product
not both. Now I?m not a big Microsoft fan nor do I like Bill Gates,
but if Bill made America believe that they have the only operating
system good for him. I personally need to use it in business and
it's a corporate directive. I would rather use something like LINUX
but unfortunately there is little useful business software for it
and we do not have the staff to support both LINUX and Microsoft.
I have an idea that the Justice Department seemed to overlook.
Don't break Microsoft up but rather make them liable for security
violations that ``known issues'' and the cost related to businesses
that have a violation. Have a ``Lemon Law'' for bad software.
Currently if a software company has a known bug that disrupts
business, or forces a business to pay a fine, they don't get charged
for that. Think about it this way, if you bought a car and the
brakes didn't work wouldn't you sue the manufacturer for a defective
product? Why don't software companies get held to that level of
liability? If Microsoft had to reimburse companies for each worker's
hours who had to restart their computer because Microsoft's software
was written so badly they would be a very, very small software
company fast and have a very small user installed base.
My two cents,
Pete
Atlanta, GA
MTC-00010295
From: Rush, Brad
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 4:17pm
Subject: Settle Now
Get it over with. Your actions are giving them justification to
charge even more for their software. Let free enterprise work.
Brad Rush, CMA, CFM, CBM--
CNL Retirement Corp.
Office: (407) 650-1010
Fax: (407) 650-1022
Cell: (407) 421-1003
E-Mail: Office mailto:[email protected]>
Personal mailto:[email protected]>
MTC-00010296
From: Ania Lewkowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
I was very saddened by the Microsoft settlement and how it
seemed that all the evidence in the world could not break through
that steel wall of a monoploy. I cringe to liken this case to the
O.J. Simpson
[[Page 25289]]
trial, where the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of his guilt,
yet it seems as though the jury was somehow ``jaded'' to believe his
story when the rest of the world thought of it as an open and shut
case of spousal murder. In a way, this MS case is no different. How
is it possible to see the plethora of proven instances of
monopolistic behavior, yet to let them go with no more than a slap
on the hand? I truly believe that Microsoft got off VERY easy, and
as a consumer, I am frustrated by my inability to determine for
myself the design and configuration of the initial screens displayed
on the PC's being sold today. My choice is limited to either Windows
or virtually nothing. And if that's not a monopoly, then I'm
interested to hear another definition explaining what exactly that
is.
Sincerely,
Ania Lewkowicz
MTC-00010297
From: Pouya Yadegar
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Case.
The premise that a company that makes money did it by cheating,
lying and stealing and did it at the detrement of ``people'' is
exactly the opposite of what happens. Anybody that makes money is
HELPING and more importantly has the right to pursue their goals.
Your counter to that is that ``what if they do it by cheating''?
The answer is that the people get to vote with their $$, not the
government by some chaotic mystical measurement that changes from
day to day. If you want further clarification of this concept please
review the results of communism/socialism countries like Russia and
their results vs. (for the most part) democratic countries like the
U.S.
The only ``monopoly'' that exists anywhere is one started by the
government, subsidized by the government (See Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac and the USPS.) Microsoft had no government help and they need to
be honored for their contribution to society. The entire country and
even the WORLD needs to have a yearly celebration thanking Microsoft
instead of Breaking their balls. If everybody pursued and achieved
what Microsoft has done the world would be such a utopian place that
is not even imaginable compared to our society today.
MTC-00010298
From: Kris Brinkerhoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:28pm
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft anti-trust case
To whom it may concern:
I believe that Microsoft needs to be punished just like any
other company found guilty of practicing a monopoly. The industry
usually has to conform to what they say they are going to support or
not support in their operating system. To have your hardware item
listed as being ``made for Windows'' gives you an edge over the
competition.
As for their trying to appease the government by providing PCs
to lower income students and schools, they should actually provide
Macintosh computers or cash otherwise they are again undercutting
competition and widening their customer base and dependence/
influence upon them once again.
Also if they have a piece of software on CD they can just
duplicate the software on the CD. It is pretty much like being able
to print their own money. They can copy as many as they want and
call it 500 million in software because they are selling the license
to use the software.
The damages should be paid in monetary figures not in software
which can be produced once and published an infinite number of
times.
Thank you for your time.
Kris
California: [email protected]
Connecticut: [email protected]
Florida: [email protected]
Iowa: [email protected]
Kansas: [email protected]
Massachusetts: [email protected]
Minnesota: [email protected]
Utah: [email protected]
West Virginia: [email protected]
US Dept of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments:
[email protected]
US Dept of Justice-other sites worldwide:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/otheratr.htm
Kris Brinkerhoff
--ITS Help Desk Analyst
--California State University, Fresno
MTC-00010299
From: Fritzly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
In my opinion it is time to close this unfortunate episode that
only brought to the surface the many contradictions of our system.
First we had a Judge so anti MS oriented that the trial reminded me
the ones in Beria's time. In spite of that I still don't see what
damage was caused to the consumers by MS behavior. I am a customer,
I bought in 1995 Netscape Navigator and I paid it more or less $35
when IE by MS was already free, why? Because it was a better
product! After that Netscape failed to improve their software and I
switch to IE because it became a better product. The most serious
issue here is that tax payer money has been and it is being used to
satisfy the request of MS competitors, who unable to create a better
product are lobbying to harm the competition with me paying the bill
to do this! This is a real scandal and must stop. Do you really
believe that people are so stupid to believe that when MS
competitors speak out they do it to protect consumers? Nobody who is
awakens and active in our society believe it. The same fact that the
only way to bring MS in court was to use a law more than eighty
years old, a law created specifically to hit a certain company, a
law involving the right to use natural resources and not, as MS
case, to commercialize intellectual properties. Be very careful
targeting the same idea of success, being smarter is not a sin as it
is not being a mediocrity, the real sin is pretend that as you are a
mediocrity everybody else must stick at your same level. History
books are full of examples of what I mean.
Best regards
Stefano Colasanti
MTC-00010300
From: Jon Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello,
My name is Jon Thompson, and I am a resident of Iowa (706 South
Main, Woodward.)
I've recently read that the National Department of Justice has
settled with Microsoft on a punishment. In my opinion, this
settlement is much too light, and it will not restrict Microsoft's
existing illegal practices.
The remedy should require Microsoft to:
1. Use open standards.
Microsoft has shown that they repeatedly use a technique of
``embracing and extinguishing.'' Microsoft will embrace an open
technology, then make changes that only Microsoft products can
understand. The web is an example of this. Microsoft has implemented
new, subtle, additions to HTML (the web's language) that only
Microsoft browsers can read.
2. Make all applications available to alternate Operating
Systems. Microsoft has kept other systems (Linux and Mac OS) out of
buinesses by limiting the available Microsoft software for those
platforms. If MS was required to make--all--software available to at
least two operating systems besides Windows, it would minimize that
lock of their Monopoly.
Also, this would limit the pressure that Microsoft could impose
on other companies. It is well known that Microsoft threatened to
drop Mac OS support for Office unless Apple used Internet Explorer
as the default browser. If MS was required to support two other
operating systems for all applications, they wouldn't have this
power.
I hope that Iowa is not one of the states that supports the
current settlement, as it is not nearly hard enouch.
Jon Thompson
706 South Main
Woodward, Iowa 50276
``They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''--Benjamin Franklin
MTC-00010301
From: Jeff Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement case
Its to bad that the judge of the microsoft settlement case
regards capitalism as more important than education. What is this
world coming to?
Aaron
MTC-00010302
From: Curt Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
[[Page 25290]]
I support the settlement proposed by the Bush administration.
AL GORE may have invented the internet, but Bill Gates is the
one who made it possible for all of us to use it.
Quit spending tax payer moneys on the pursuit of more
litigation.
Curtis Johnson
2511 M-140
Niles, MI
49120
[email protected]
MTC-00010303
From: Robert C. Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:41pm
Subject: The Microsoft Ruling
Thank goodness--the judge that ruled against the Microsoft
settlement can see the some of the anticompetitive effects that
would result.
The original ruling is right: MS should be split up.
When IBM was in trouble in the 1960s and 1970s, they were not
treated the same way MS would be treated should they be allowed to
distribute PCs to schools. In those days, the law seemed aware
enough to realize that capturing dominant market share at the level
of the public schools would strengthen a company's competitive
stranglehold on the computer industry considerably. It would also
enable them to influence the market mindset of future generations in
their favor. Why would it be any different, now?
Also, what about Apple? Shouldn't they be allowed to exist and
to attempt to compete?
You should take a look at a number of MS's practices. Nestscape
has suffered. Clearly, MS's next targets are Sun Microsystems
(Java), and any commercial Linux offering that might threaten their
market share in the future.
MTC-00010304
From: Biondo, Ted HS-SNS
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft case comments
US Department of Justice,
A far greater threat to our country's free enterprise system,
than any adjudicated monopolistic tendencies of Microsoft, is the
precedent being set by members of Congress and State Attorneys
General who have placed the financial goals of Microsoft's
competitors, residing in their respective states, ahead of the
American consumers! These ``defenders'' of competition are using the
powers of their office, and the courts to intimidate and dictate
restrictions on businesses in order to level what should remain a
competitive playing field.
Microsoft created standard operating systems and application
software that has decreased the price of consumer hardware and
software, not increased it. Microsoft developed software processes
that have brought computers to the masses using visual format, while
creating millions of jobs in associated peripheral hardware
equipment by simplifying those peripheral interfaces for
nontechnical users. This is bad for the consumer?
Finally, in the global arena, foreign nations have created
government financed monopolies, and now a common currency, to
compete with American corporations. To remain competitive, our
manufacturing industries have been consolidating and outsourcing
processes for years to those very same nations, resulting in the
loss of American jobs and purchasing power. One of the few remaining
successfully competitive businesses the USA holds in world commerce
is the software service industry. Since this software monopoly
``witch hunt'' was begun by those who cannot compete in our free
market without using their government officials to stifle
competition, our overall ability to compete in the global market
will be reduced and will inevitably drive the software service
industry down the same road as its manufacturing counterparts.
Investors will not risk their capital in a marketplace
controlled by political whim versus business scrutiny!
Terrorists from without will never damage our free enterprise
system as much as the self-serving powers from within under the
guise consumer protection! The Justice Department settlement of
restrictions, the ban on exclusive contracts and disclosure of APIs
goes far enough. Please end this charade. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this most important case,
Ted Biondo
(815) 226-5958
MTC-00010305
From: Joe Vislocky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft's rejected settlement
I believe the judge was acting in a well considered manner. It
seems to me that to punish a company whose practices have been
deemed anti-competitive by giving them the means by which to further
their monopolistic strategies was ill concieved in the first place.
I know in my mind and many of my colleague's, it appeared that
certain parties in the government had switched sides and were in
fact in collusion with Microsoft.
Joseph S. Vislocky
IT Director
Wilmac Corporation
[email protected]
MTC-00010306
From: Roger Lathrop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
Yet another Federal Judge has misunderstood the Microsaft
situation. I have owned apples and IBM compatibles. I've worked with
dos, Windows, & Linux. Microsaft simply has a superior product. I
was very happy to have a free browser included. In point of fact, I
prefer Netscape, so I downloaded that with Microsoft's free browser
and was in business in a few minutes.
My state (Iowa) has made a bad decision based on politics and
not on fact. The settlement should be approved because the suit is
ill founded and harmful to our economy. If anyone cares what this
one individual thinks, there it is.
Roger Lathrop
Davenport, Iowa
MTC-00010307
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:51pm
Subject: WHEN WILL QUIT WASTE TAXPAYERS MONEY AND END THIS GAME
i do not owne any stock in miscrosoft but i feel this legal drag
on microsoft has gone enough with no one benefiting at all only
remedy is money so why not agree to number and wrap this hell we are
sick and tired of it and i will still use microsoft so what is
gained from something old like this case microsoft has agreeded to
admit some fault and will pay for it what else can you get nothing
but waste alot of tax payers money you can't brake it up for appeal
court said this already i just find it strange that we are a real
bad recession and you are going after the engine in the car without
microsoft there is no recovery and you will see real defiects we can
not afford another 2001 but unless this is not settled and quicly
then we will
mr. bush has already said he wanted closed quickly now please
end this game we have enough problems then the ego game by 9
district attorneys who are only looking for policial gains only
thank you
george g. dingoian
[email protected]
MTC-00010308
From: Bob and/or Jan Thune
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft
Get off of Microsoft' case. Once again government is wrecking a
vibrant US industry, just like they did the Automobile Industry
(where I made my living).
This is NOT about protecting the consumer. Even the DUMBEST
person knows that you are not abusing the customer by giving
something away something for free. It just can't happen.
This case is about ``wanna be's'' spreading money around
Washington, and Washington sucking it up just like they always do.
Somewhere this has to end..... End It !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope Gates moves his business to Canada just to show you
idiots !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert and Jan Thune, Lecanto, Fl.
MTC-00010309
From: Dan Jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:52pm
Subject: Recently, a friend of mine asked what I thought of the
Microsoft case.
Recently, a friend of mine asked what I thought of the Microsoft
case.
Me: ``Do you think the maffia is profitable?''
Him: ``Sure''.
Me: ``If you could invest in stock in the maffia, that would pay
dividends, might you do it?''
Him: ``Sure!!''
Me: ``Suppose you did that; you put most of your investment cash
into maffia stock; and it paid handsomely.''
Him: ``Yeah!''
Me: ``The maffia is reputed to give a lot of money to churches,
little old widows, and
[[Page 25291]]
help neighborhood families in need. That's a good thing, right?''
Him: ``Right''.
Me: ``Do you think the maffia, -over all, is a good thing for
society?''
Him: ``Well, no...''
Me: ``Well, considering you invested a lot of money in the
maffia stock, where now do your loyalties lie? Do you think the
Justice Department should leave the maffia alone, because they give
a lot of money to churches, etc., and pay you a healthy dividend? Or
should the Justice Department do what is necessary to prevent the
maffia from doing harm?''
In case you don't understand my alegory:
Sure, Microsoft gives away millions to schools; -for a fantastic
tax deduction no doubt. Microsoft, it has finally been officially
determined, also stiffles competition, strong-arms vendors, and
generally, -acts like the maffia! Break them up!
Dan Jerry
Actively envolved with the ``micro computer'' since 1978, and an
avid industry historian and intentional observer.
553 Beartown Road
West Chazy, NY 12992
MTC-00010311
From: Daniel A. Myerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 4:55pm
Subject: Settlement
The attack by the justice department was unjust. How could any
settlement be called unjust in those circumtances? Dan Myerson
MTC-00010312
From: Mark Overholser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:01pm
Subject: Get off their case!
I'm sick of you jack-booted courtroom thugs at the Department of
Justice pursuing this poppycock at a time when there should be
PLENTY of legitimate bad guys out there for you to spend OUR money
chasing.
Get off Microsoft's case. That company may not be the
friendliest ``neighbor'' in the corporate 'hood, but they put many
thousands of people to work and pay their corporate taxes on
time...and if people don't like the company, they don't have to buy
its products.
Clinton's gone now, it's okay for you to stop wasting OUR money
on YOUR ideologically-driven left wing witch hunts again.
MTC-00010313
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft
I am a supporter of Microsoft. This alligation has gone on too
long. Microsoft has made sufficient changes to there software and
operating procedures. Do you want the last ounce of blood?
Robert
MTC-00010314
From: Andrew Warren
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrew Warren
POB 476
New Tripoli, Pa 18066
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
A J Warren
MTC-00010315
From: Richard L. Joslin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:04pm
Subject: Short sighted vision relative to Microsoft fiasco
It appears to me that the United States Justice Department has
been very short sighted in what the Microsoft Corporation has done
for the ``home user'' and to the overall balance of payments to the
US Treasury. Go ahead and kill them off and create a reason for them
to leave the U. S. and you will be responsible for more of a problem
than settling the case now. The Clinton administration created the
mess to cover up for the presidents wrong doings and get the ``heat
off'' him and now you are just proliferating a non problem. Where
else could a small time user like me get a desk top software setup
so cheaply and made in the USA? You guys are not solving the
problem, just adding to it in my opinion.
You are all alike. Kill any one who makes a dollar and at the
same time take away the little guys software while pretending to
represent him.
Richard L. Joslin
18416 SE 280th St.
Kent Washington,
98042
Registered Republican voter
MTC-00010316
From: Thomas Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:05pm
Subject: settlement
I believe that a dollar amount from Microsoft should be reached
for the schools and let the teachers decide which computer systems
(Microsoft or Apple) to use. It is imperative that money be provided
to the ``poor schools''. These kids from low income families are
falling further and further behind the rest of the nation relative
to technology knowledge and many of these kids are intelligent and
deserve an opportunity to compete at a higher level.
Although I am not an owner of Microsoft stock, I am the CEO of a
company that spends over $100,000 annually on software (most of
which are Microsoft products) and hardware. I would not approve the
purchase of any other office software other than Microsoft's. I
believe the current settlement with the Justice department is
satisfactory while nine (I think) States are trying to hinder
Microsoft so that competitive companies in each State will have a
better chance at survival. I think the Justice department should ban
these States from further litigation against Microsoft. Let software
companies compete against each other and the best products will win.
This is the way our economy is setup to work!
Thomas W. Hill
[email protected]>
MTC-00010317
From: Kent, Mike
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer professional and computer software and hardware
professor, I am concerned that the proposed settlement will amount
to little more that a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. In fact, the
proposed settlement may well allow Microsoft to strengthen its hold
in the education market. Microsoft is a monopoly. It has used its
dominate position to stop its completion.
The remedy must be to break up the company or destroy its
ability to crush its competition in illegal and monopolistic ways.
There is fledgling and growing competition to Microsoft. In the past
Microsoft has been able to crush its completion by intimidation or
illegal ways.
Please act. The future of innovation and diversity in the
computer industry may well depend on it.
Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Mike Kent
Department Chair
Computer Information Systems
San Jacinto College, Central Campus
[email protected]
MTC-00010318
From: Carl Friedberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:15pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
[[Page 25292]]
Washington, DC 20530
Facsimile: (202)616-9937 or (202) 307-1454
Email: [email protected]
Dear Renata Hesse,
I am a physicist who has worked with computers, computer
operating systems, and applications, since 1961. I am not a legal
specialist. I have read carefully the proposed settlement between
some of the states and the US, and Microsoft.
I am astounded that, although found guilty of violating the
Anti-Trust statutes, there is no direct provision for any punishment
of Microsoft.
The only recourse I have is to initiate civil litigation against
Microsoft in the hope of recovering treble damages. Because of the
difficulty and expense of such litigation, this recourse is of
little use or value to any user who has suffer damage from
Microsoft's Windows monopoly, and the resulting lack of choice in
the desktop marketplace.
We, the users of desktop computer operating systems, deserve
better from our government. Where is Microsoft being punished for
willful, illegal actions? Forcing them to open up certain Windows
and Middleware APIs is not punishment; it is merely an attempt to
slow them down from increasing their 95% dominance in the
marketplace to 100% dominance.
I hope the Honorable Judge of the US Court will take into
account the concerns of those states which are not parties to the
proposed settlement, and punish the guilty party here. Microsoft
deserves significant punishment; there is none, that I can see, in
the proposed settlement.
Restraining future monopolistic activities is essential, because
Microsoft is a huge force in this marketplace, and has reaped
enormous improper gains.
Just look at the amount of cash Microsoft has accumulated, which
can be used at will to thwart legitimate competitors. Even a casual
reading of the US tax code suggests that the amount of cash amassed
by Microsoft exceeds a reasonable number, and should instead be
distributed as dividends to shareholders (and taxed). This solution,
while perhaps a bit stretched in legal terms, could certainly be
held over Microsoft's head as a stick--and they could agree to
declare some dividend (perhaps only $10 or 20 billion dollars per
year) as a token of punishment for their illegal behavior. What a
punishment!
I hope you will consider some appropriate form of punishment, in
addition to the proposed restraints.
Thank you.
Carl E. Friedberg, PhD
President & CEO
Comet & Company
New York NY
www.comets.com
MTC-00010319
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision
I agree with the Court's decision.
Period!
Fred H. Dissen
6208 Clearbrook Drive
Flowery Branch, GA 30542
MTC-00010320
From: Mary Salaja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:23pm
Subject: microsoft case
What are you thinking. Since when does the criminal get to
decide and possibly profit from committing a crime. You need to look
past the fact that MS is a corporation and focus on the fact that it
has been convicted of a crime. Therefore, the PUNISHMENT should make
certain that it is not in a postion to continue its CRIMINAL
activities. Besides, isn't competition suppose to be the American
way.
J. Salaja
MTC-00010321
From: Jim (038) Widget Webert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:24pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected]
Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were
not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly. I believe in advancing free market competition and
this settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
James Webert
POB 2776
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
MTC-00010322
From: dorothy smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
A SWIFT SETTLEMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY.
MICROSOFT CUSTOMERS AND THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. PLEASE END IT.
KINDEST REGARDS.
God Bless You!
Dorothy C. Smith
[email protected]
MTC-00010323
From: Gene Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:35pm
Subject: My experience with Microsoft
11 January, 2002
[[Page 25293]]
Ref: My experience with Microsoft
Dear Justice Department,
I use Microsoft's word, excel and access software programs and
Microsoft's OUTLOOK 2000 email program. I use these every working
day and also at home. My job is to support agents in 75 countries.
I urge you to take a stong hand with Microsoft and force them to
be more compatible with competing software companies and to cease
the practice of forcing upgrades to their software products. Their
marketing practice of designing their products so that upgrades are
forced on their customers is, very often, unnecessary, expensive,
causes delay and increases the cost of doing business.
A specific example is Internet Explorer 98 which I have on my
home computer. It will not access secure websites (I cannot use it
to order goods and services online). I have to use NETSCAPE to place
orders online. I cannot upgrade Explorer 98--Microsoft will not let
me. Two computer repair services have advised me that I must wipe my
computer clean and then reinstall Explorer 98 or install a later
version.
Another example is the practice of upgrading Microsoft word in
such a way that attachments to email sent to recipients who have a
lower version of Word cannot open the attacment; they must purchase
a word attachment for their computer in order to open the documents
in your new version of word. These practices are petty, demeaning
and are low level marketing tactics unbecoming of a major US
company.
Best Regards,
Gene Williams
Marketing Director
GLOBALTEL
1801 North Military Trail, Suite 203
Boca Raton, Florida 33431-1811 USA
Tel: (561) 999-9116, Extension 112
Tel: (800) 219-9545, Extension 112
Fax: (561) 999-0518
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.GlobalTel.com
MTC-00010324
From: james arnstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Dear Sir,
I think the DOJ and the 9 states entered into the anti trust
settlement is obsessed to see how far they can carry out this case.
Microsoft has had sufficient penalties levied against it. It seems
to me that we all need to get on with our ``business at hand,''.
Everything that continues to go on now, seems like a ``cheap shot''
at Microsoft as long as it is forced to ``tippy toe'' around until
the settlement is completed.
James Arnstein
MTC-00010325
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft's punishment
Gentlemen.
I find it remarkable that the government thinks that an
appropriate punishment for a convicted monopolist is to effectively
increase their sales by a billion dollars and give them free access
to markets they had previously been unable to force their way into.
If the government isn't going to break the company up and is
considering a $1B fine, I would offer the following suggestion.
1. The $1B has to be all cash, not one single microsoft product.
The money should all be spent buying Apples, Suns, and tech support
for non-Microsoft operating systems (getting rid of those microsoft
worm, virus, and crash prone IIS machines would probably do the net
a world of good). This would give Apple (where microsoft stole most
of their really good ideas) a boost. Getting the schools out of the
cost cycle associated with microsoft's monoply inflated prices and
into Linux would give them a more virus resistant system and help
them in the long run (Linux is about $75, Windows about $400--go
figure).
2. Microsoft should be required to make a version of all their
software (i.e. MS Office, etc) for all operating systems i.e. Apple
, Linux, Unix, Sun OS etc. Most application providers provide
versions of their products for various different operating systems
but not microsoft. This would force them to make less tightly
interlinked software (and would actually improve it's performance)
as well as help break the vertical monoply they currently enjoy.
3. The government is a major purchaser of microsoft operating
systems and software. Under normal circumstances, the government
will not purchase things that do not conform to standards (IEEE,
ANSI, ISO, etc). I cannot think of a single microsoft product that
does not violate one standard or another. Indeed, one of their
monopolistic stratagies has been to make extentions, i.e.
modifications to standards, to make them unique to microsoft and,
therefore, incompatible with products that do meet the standards.
This was the basis of a lawsuit from Sun over Java. Microsoft's
response was to eliminate Java from their latest operating
application, doubtless figuring that they had adequate muscle to
ignore all the applications that use Java. When it comes to
microsoft, the government is ignoring their own rules regarding
standards compliance. The government should stop doing this. They
should tell microsoft that they will not purchase a single MS
product that violates a widely accepted standard. I doubt that
microsoft could afford to lose the government's business and it
would break that monopolistic practice.
Jeffrey P. Harrison
900 South Third St.
St. Charles, Mo. 63301-2402
MTC-00010326
From: hawk eye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:50pm
comw on get it over msn gives away services to the talking about
giving away comptures to education, seems like the goverment neds to
worrie about what is not working with inside its self I know i work
for the goverment fix what is not working right ,clean it up, the
ppl of the US are tired of the goverment going after something that
is working right,did u all think that msn might just laying off ppl
if u hit them hard come on go after real crime, what about polution
from big companys ,wish the goverment spend as much time going after
that than msn get real ppl let msn give education free comtures and
tell then what not to do
MTC-00010327
From: Rich Faltisco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:50pm
Subject: Keep Going After Microsoft
Dear Friends,
The latest version of Microsoft Windows--XP--points out all that
is wrong with Microsoft.
First, the price keeps going up and up for the operating system.
Now literally priced fixed at one hundred dollars, what real
alternative does the home user have to XP? And certainly privacy has
been thrown out the proverbial window. I really don't like big
brother Bill Gates ready to gather all kinds of information on my
computer if i load up XP. Thirdly, Windows is a programming
nighmare. I don't believe anyone but Microsoft knows all the hooks
to the code.
Stability--IBM's OS/2 was a stable operating years ago. I
believe Microsoft could have done this with Windows years ago, and
not now with XP. Several years ago i loaded up IBM's Os/2 Warp in
parallel to Windows. As i did so, I got a message from Microsoft
asking if i really wanted to do this. Pretty bizarre and pretty
small, i would say. And i think that is the attitude still
indicative to Microsoft today.
Thank you for your time,
Rich Faltisco
MTC-00010328
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have spent some time looking at the Settlement between the
DOJ/State AGs and Microsoft. While i have serious doubts about the
wisdom of bringing this lawsuit in the first place and whereas i
have some reservations about the strength and precendent of the
remedies I certainly want this whole nightmare behind us. It s time
for those of us in the high-tech industry to get back to work.
Thanks. I know it took a lot of sweat and long hours to produce.
Americans are grateful for that. Tim
MTC-00010330
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Microsoft/Justice Department settlement is a
great things for consumers worldwide. I congratulate both Microsoft
and the DOJ for finally being flexible enough to get there. It is
important that the balance of innovation and customer benefit as
well as openness of Windows is there. Congratulations again on the
settlement.
MTC-00010331
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
[[Page 25294]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let the ruling between Microsoft and the settlement of
November 2001 be the end of all litagation proceedings.
MTC-00010332
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the entire antitrust suit should be dropped. However
as this is obviously not going to happen I fully support the quick
resoulution of this case and the proposed settlement. Any additional
punishment of Microsoft would be a crime in my view simply because I
feel that they did no wrong. Additionally I feel that this entire
antitrust fiasco was an entirely anti-competitive move by both the
DOJ and Microsofts comptitors such as AOL and Sun. Additionally I
feel that this case was one of the primary causes of the current
enconomic downturn. Thank you for your time.
MTC-00010333
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THIS SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ALL PARTIES INCLUDING THE
VARIOUS STATES. THE SETTLEMENT IS MORE THAN FAIR TO COMSUMERS AND
MICROSOFT S COMPETITION.
MTC-00010334
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft and our free enterprise system alone! This case
should have never been in the first place. Let the consumers decide
in the marketplace which companies are the winners and which ones
are the losers. I resent government interference in thinking they
know better than us who have been in the information technology
business for years. We are talking about a $99 operating system that
nobody is forced to buy if they don t want it (the IRS takes much
more than that away from us by the use of force and coercion and we
don t get anything back in return). Consumers can always use the
free operating system called Linux along with its free web browser.
Any new features Microsoft puts into their operating system is
purely for their own survival. Live and let live! I thank Microsoft
for driving down prices so that the common person can understand and
afford technology. If you punish them then our government is no
better than a communist dictatorship which desires to own and
control all business! The shame of it all is that Microsoft s
competitors refused to offer better products at lower prices and
instead resorted to government coercion and force. What a sad day
for American liberty! If government is truly looking out for the
consumers as they say they are then leave Microsoft alone! Answer
this question--how many complaints have you heard from the consumers
themselves (the very persons government claims to be protecting)?
MTC-00010335
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft s competitors seek more litigation for obvious
reasons. Their products simply don t stack up to those of Microsoft.
So they use this method to attempt to weaken one of the best of
United States companies. Consumers around the world are better off
because of Microsoft. The settlement is fair and equitable. Let s
end this ridiculous and costly litigation.
MTC-00010336
From: [email protected]. edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A fair and reasonable settlement.
MTC-00010337
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
it is in my beleaf that Microsoft is being as fair as possible.
I DO NOT THINK ITS RIGHT THAT OTHER BUSINESS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
mICROSOFTS HARD EARNT ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLIGIES. IF THESE OTHER
COMPANYS WANT TO HAVE SUCCESFUL BUSINESS THEN LET THEM ESTABLISH
THERE OWN TEAM OF TECHNICIANS AND CREATE THERE OWN TECHNOLIGIES
INSTEAD OF CRYING FOUL AND WANTING SOMEONE ELSES ALREADY FORMED
TECHNOLIGIES.YES ITS TRUE MICROSOFT HAS MANY ADVANCEMENTS BUT THEY
EARNT THEM THE HARD WAY THEY WORKED FOR THEM. I THINK ITS WRONG FOR
THE GOVERNMENT TO WANT TO BREAK A BUSINESS UP BECAUSE A CERTAIN
INDIVIDUAL HAS A PERSONNEL AGENDA AGAINST MICROSOFT. I WATCHED AT&T
BROKE UP BY GOVERNMENT AND LOOK ITS COSTING EVERYONE MORE MONEY.
WHICH I BELEIVE IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. OTHER BUSINESS AND
GOVERNMENT WANTING A PIECE OF SOMEONES HARD EARNT MONIES.Is it Bill
Gates fault that he is sucessful? yes it is!! he and his company
worked hard for there achevements. so thats my story and let it be
said that if other business and people want to make microsofts
profits then let them earn them the old fashion way! work for them
themselves and not try to have government step in when it is really
not of concern to goverment unless they too found a way to make free
money from others .
respectible
Robert A Werner
MTC-00010338
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We don t want to go back wards with technology. Leave Microsoft
alone and let them go ahead with new software technology. It s not
microsoft s fault that they have better program s. If I wanted to go
backwards I could go with the other programs anytime. Thank You Al
Neff Sr.
MTC-00010339
From: chris--crabtree@shoneys. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: The times and the technology have moved
on. You should too. Let s stop listening to those companies who have
trouble competing on an even playing field and have done with this.
Thanks!
MTC-00010340
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my support for the Microsoft-Department of
Justice settlement. I believe the settlement is fair and provides a
reasonable end to curbing antitrust behavior of Microsoft while
allowing them to continue to innovate in a very competitive and
sometimes cutthroat arena of the computer software business. I
applaud the DOJ s willingness to settle this case during our current
economic recession and move on. It is clear that the dissenting
states have prevented the previous attempt to settle this case out
of court. I feel the settlement is fair. Thank you for your
consideration. Robert A. Schor M.D.
MTC-00010341
From: bradley--bobbs@xontech. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please put an end to the ridiculous harrassment of Microsoft
already and go bother someone instead who is actually doing
something wrong! Thank you.
MTC-00010342
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop trying to CRIPPLE Microsoft. The software innovations by
this incredible company have added fuel to our economy creating jobs
and allowing workers to be more productive. Workers like myself who
use Microsoft software everyday and appreciate the beauty with which
its applications work together. Sincerely Dolores Freund
MTC-00010343
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is too easy for Microsoft to disregard and
continue monopolizing our lives. Microsoft needs to be puinished for
destroying the consumers right to freedom. Make Microsoft feel some
of the pain they have leveraged on others for so many years.
MTC-00010344
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25295]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bring this case to an end and don t permit state DA s to go off
on their own anti-Microsoft crusade.
MTC-00010345
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is fair if anything it is unfair to Microsoft. I
think it is a darn shame when a young boy can make the American
dream come true and the vulchers of other companies(competitors)can
use our legal system to try to eleminate the competition. As a
matter of fact the legal system should penalize the competitors and
the lawyers that are bringing the suit against Microsoft however I
realize that Judges are lawyers so we know that the fair thing will
never be done. The only way it will ever be fair is to get the money
grubbing lawyers out of it and let a non-lawyer good American
citizen make the ruling.
MTC-00010346
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
America is the land of oppertunity in which your future lays in
your hands. Granted Microsoft has engauged in vary tough marketing
practices in a vary cut throat business. Welcome to America where
the best are the best and second place is second place. The
competitors of Microsoft are tring to use the Justice Department to
restrict the leader to gain marketshare. If the actions that
Microsoft s competitors are taken then a precedent will be set that
will lead to other outragous lawsuites clogging the courts and
harming the free market. Their is nothing stopping anyone from
developing and deploying a better software thatn Microsoft. It is
just no one have developed a better software. When that is done and
history leads us to beleive it will be done then America will have a
new #1 software company. Stick to what Microsoft has done wrong and
apply constraints to Microsoft to prevent just those areas of
opperation are not repeated.
MTC-00010347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
please for the sake of fairness and economics settlethis suit
now cg.
MTC-00010348
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The plaintiffs clearly have no concept of ethics they are not
interested in fairness justice or the well being of their fellow
citizens or of the economy. They are crude gold-diggers out for a
quick buck. Surely the buck stops here.
MTC-00010349
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement with Microsoft and hope this matter can
be brought to an end without Microsoft s competitors being able to
sabotage the proceedings as they have been doing. For the good our
our country and technological innovation let s move ahead and put
this behind us.
MTC-00010350
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is in the best interest of this country to get this
case settled with all parties concerned and move on. The case never
should have been brought.
MTC-00010351
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs, I am opposed to any settlement with MS that does not
allow full access by the customer to software of his choice, this
would be like telling a person what brand of trailer he could tow on
the end of his truck, and what kind of hitch he had to use. I also
use plug in drives for differant accounts, and do not what to have
to repeatedly contact MS for reactivation. Also the open software
movement, would be where Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and
Bejamin Franklen would be today.
Respectfully Lee Dambrosky
Rapid City, SD
MTC-00010352
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In our opinion this whole charade has been an enormous waste of
taxpayers capital deployed in a misguided effort to protect a few
companies like Sun Microsystems AOL-Time Warner and Oracle Corp.
Please end this waste. Thank you Scott Cuddihy
MTC-00010353
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle-this thing has gone on long enough and it offends me that
my taxpayer money is going to support this riduculous case
MTC-00010354
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get off Microsoft s back. Settle now. Settlement is fair.
MTC-00010355
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel any more litagation against Microsoft should be dropped
totally and forever. We now know that Janet Reno was more interested
in going after MSFT than bin Laden. The whiners in Silicon Valley
need to be told to build a better mousetrap if they want to compete.
The consumer (me) is the only one who will be harmed by any further
litigation. Meanwhile the attorneys are the only people who win.
MTC-00010356
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let Microsoft alone. Together we can fight political
corruption throughout our government.
Thank you
MTC-00010357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
11 Jan 2002 The settlement agreements are fair and equitable.
Now let s approve them and get back to business.
MTC-00010358
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft antitrust litigation as soon as
possible. The drain on your resources and the world economy is
immeasurable. Let s get it over with and move on.
MTC-00010359
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion it is time to drop all complaints against
Microsoft. The Microsoft Company has done more to increase
productivity and efficiency in the American workforce than any other
single entity in the entire history of the United States. The entire
case against Microsoft by a group of mis-guided Attorneys General
and cometitors who lacked quality products signifies one very
important fact to me: if you can t beat the competition find a
lawyer who will do his darndest to sue. I don t think that is the
American way. Our world dominance in computer software is due to the
excellent foresight and long term strategic planning of Microsoft.
Any and all legal action against the Microsoft Corp. should be
immediately terminated.
MTC-00010360
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I AM WRITING THIS AS I BELIEVE IN WHAT EVERYONE CALLS THE
AMERICAN WAY . WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE PROMOTERS OF FREE ENTERPRISE
AND INITIATIVE. MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES TOOK THIS ENTREPRENEUAL
TACT AND
[[Page 25296]]
HAVE NOW BEEN PUNISHED FOR IT. I DO UNDERSTAND THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS
BUT FEEL THAT THESE LAWS WERE MADE AT A TIME THEY WERE NEEDED. A LOT
OF LAWS BECOME OUTDATED. I BELIEVE SOME OF THESE ANTI-TURST LAWS
HAVE DONE JUST THAT. THE LAW IS THE LAW HOWEVER SO JUSTICE WAS
SERVED AND SENTENCE PRONOUNCED. LET THIS REST. THE COMPETITERS ARE
JUST SORRY THAT THEY WERE NOT THE ONES WITH THE IDEAS. ALL THESE
ANTI-TRUST LAWSUITS HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT HURT THE CONSUMER AND THE
ECONOMY. THE DEREGULATION DUE TO ANT-TURST LAWS HAS COST THE
CONSUMER AND COUNTRY TREMEMDOUSLY IN GAS ELECTRIC COMMUNICATIONS AND
NOW TECHNOLOGY. WHEN WILL IT END. I PERSONALLY THINK ONLY WHEN THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF OUR COUNTRY DEEMS THESE ANTIQUATED ANTI-TRUST
LAWS NULL AND VOID AND WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF OUR
COUNTRY MAKES LAWS THAT PREVENT FRIVILOUS LAWSUITS. THANK YOU FOR
ASKING FOR THE EVERYDAY CONSUMER S OPINION.
MTC-00010361
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wholeheartedly support the settlement as currently negotiated
with the DOJ. I believe that both parties have made concessions and
the settlement appropriately reflects the substantially narrowed
ruling as handed down by the unanimous Appeals Court. It is time to
move on. The hold-out states are simply acting in the interests of
Microsoft competitors based in their states and are not acting on
the behalf of the consumer. It is in the interest of consumers to
have this case settled and behind us all. Let innovation and
competition flourish again in the tech industry without the heavy
hand of government interference. Werner Baron
MTC-00010362
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement approved by the Department of
Justice and 9 state attorneys general should be approved. While I
think the settlement is burdonsome and harsh on Microsoft I think it
is best to close this case and concentrate our regulation efforts on
things that REALLY matter to consumers--such as home energry prices
gasoline prices in the northwest United States monopolies in the
cable television industry etc.--rather than trying to punish a
successful company for being successful. I would sincerely hope that
in the future federal anti-trust statutes are used to protect
consumers rather than to help failed competitors compete.
MTC-00010363
From: jason.langdon@haverstick consulting.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thank you for taking the time to hear my opinion. Let me begin
by mentioning that I have worked in the online design industry for
over five years. In my opinion Microsoft has been an extremely
productive and dynamic company determined to deliver solutions to
the largest and smallest problems alike. I know the value of their
innovations firsthand. That is why I feel it is important that the
case against Microsoft be closed as soon as possible. We are at a
point as a country and a global community that we need the
innovations that companies like Microsoft offer now more than ever.
The agreement addresses all of the valid concerns that initiated the
action against Microsoft. Let s please move on and let Microsoft get
back to strengthening the economy.
MTC-00010364
From: JAMES GRAVIS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Microsoft settlement that was reached. Thank you.
James C. Gravis,
15707 Echo Canyon Dr.
Houston, Tx., 77084-3116
MTC-00010365
From: George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:02pm
Subject: M$
I agree with U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz statements--
and he is absolutely correct when he states Microsoft overcharges
for it's products. It is gross anti-competive behavior. There are
many excellent software companies who are unable to compete until
the playing field is level.
George Cochrane
Tooele, Utah
MTC-00010366
From: George S. Forde, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached letter
CC: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
8401 Seminole Street
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19118-3725
[215] 242-8332 (voice) [email protected]
[215] 242-1475 (facsimile) PA Atty. ID # 02820
[2151 284-1739 (cellular)
Sunday, 27 January, 2002
FACSIMILIE & E-Mail 1
Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear General Ashcroft,
Public opinion regarding the settlement of the antitrust case
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice has been
solicited. I offer this opinion as one who has been an interested
user of computers for personal and business purposes since 1978
(before there was a Microsoft). This has made me a bit of a student
of industry and, eventually, an investor in technology. So, I must
admit to significant [for me] holding in MSFT--as well as in
companies that might be considered to be its antagonists in this
matter. Still, I am not an apologist for Microsoft and believe that,
on balance, I must agree with the presentation of this settlement
made to the Judiciary Committee by Mr. James of your office on 12
December.
Microsoft is a monopoly. Paradoxically, I believe it got there,
in part, with the help of competitors like Apple, 2 IBM 3 and others
who just failed to properly market sometimes superior product.
Contrary to its claims, 4 the company is not particularly
innovative, and its first offerings of its [E.g., MultiPlan, DOS,
Windows, Excel, Explorer, and so on] have been acquired and, at
first, poorly implemented compared to others [Such as VisiCalc,
Lotus, or Resolve; CP/M and MacOS; Netscape...].
However, Microsoft rather than being anti-competitive is hyper-
competitive. It learns from its mistakes and is increasingly better
at execution of the ideas, whatever the source, and it continually
improves on them. It delivers what the consumer demands [eventually]
at a [hopefully] reasonable cost. For it own good, Microsoft cannot
afford to have the rivals all go away, though many have. Neither the
Department nor the defendant got all the marbles at end of this
case. That's the nature of a legal settlement. What has been crafted
seems, to me, to serve the best interests of the public and the
industry.
* Note: Due to the Excite@Home bankruptcy, this address will be
inoperative after 2/28/02; from 3/1/02 forward (possibly earlier),
please use [email protected].
1 Signed original available on request
2 Which bundled the MS spreadsheet ``MultiPlan'' with the first
Macs.
3 Which opened the PC Jr to DOS.
4 But do really like Mr. Gates, based on a couple of brief
encounters at a local users' group and more distant observation over
the years. He and Microsoft have done a great deal for all computer
users.
One thing to remember is that, while the focus of the case has
been the ``Wintel World,'' and allegations of maintenance of the OS
monopoly; however, the market is much larger than that. For example,
while I use both Widows and MacOS, I very much prefer the latter,
but I use the same Microsoft applications [I.E. and Office] on both
platforms.
I am concerned, therefore, that a separate settlement by the
non-joining states--if it follows the path offered to them by
Microsoft--would actually weaken the effect of this settlement by
making those states accomplices in plan to cannibalize the Apple
[and other] share of the education market. No need to spell out the
obvious here, but, if the states want compensation, it should be
paid outright or in the form of grants to technological projects and
spending not defined by the defendant. If possible, those states
should not be allowed to make a separate peace that would undermine
this one.
[[Page 25297]]
Sincerely,
George S. Forde, Jr.
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
(facsimile only)
Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate Network
(facsimile only)
MTC-00010367
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to approve the settlement. I believe this lawsuit was
more about milking political support than about protecting the
consumer. GET IT DONE for the sake of us all!!
MTC-00010369
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my strong belief that this settlement is in the best
interest of everyone--the technology industry the economy and
especially consumers. Since the settlement newspaper editorials from
across the nation and across the ideological spectrum have endorsed
the settlement. Please don t let a few special interest groups
prevent this settlement from going though. Sincerely Rich Otterstrom
MTC-00010370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Governments settlement is fair and no further action should
be taken. It seems everyone wants to make a name for themselves as a
giant killer. Its sad. I believe in our Justice System and the
ruling should stand and no further actions should be taken. Thank
you for reading my opinion.
MTC-00010371
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I whole heartedly support this settlement. I do not believe that
Microsoft illegally leveraged its dominance in the software industry
to harm competitors but I steadfastly believe that the education
system could use the one billion. If they want to invest in the
future of America yet again I m behind it.
Don
MTC-00010372
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end this lawsuit with Microsoft and let them get
back to providing jobs and opportunities for its workers. Without
companies like Microsoft we wouldn t have good jobs for people. Let
the free enterprise system work. Thank you.
MTC-00010373
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have followed this case fairly closely and I am still unable
to determine just who was damaged! From the beginning it has
appeared that Microsoft s competitors have used the courts to
provide a competitive advantage for themselves. My earliest
involvement with microcomputers was with an Imsi 8080 which I built
from a kit back in 1977. The very best software available for that
machine was Microsoft Basic. The name Microsoft has always provided
me with quality products at what I considered very reasonable
prices. In fact I believe that it was Microsoft s vision of Windows
that enabled the microcomputer revolution in this country and the
rest of the world. It was a point and click interface that could be
made to run on just about any IBM generic computer. Apple had a
similar (some may say superior) interface but it was only available
on Apple s pricy equipment. Microsoft s hard work brought computing
to the masses by putting Windows on the desktop. I am a happy
consumer. I have always used Microsoft Internet Explorer and I have
never been overcharged by Microsoft or damaged by using it. That s
the point!! Who has been damaged? Microsoft s competitors? If that
is the case will the Federal Courts go to bat for me when I have to
bid against one of the Big Five accounting firms for auditing work?
I doubt it and I would not expect it. This whole case appears to be
another case of the state pigs feeding at the trough of private
profits. It sickens me!
MTC-00010374
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Microsoft settlement as published on the web. The
settlement is fair and adequately addresses plaintiffs original
complaints.
MTC-00010375
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government s case against Microsoft has never had more than
marginal merit. The case has now been brought to a reasonable and
fair conclusion and should not be pursued further except as
specifically dictated by the settlement.
MTC-00010376
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get government out of our economies greatest opportunity
for growth and advancement so that capitalism can thrive.
MTC-00010377
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The only thing this lawsuit is doing is impeading the progress
of the technology sector it is only a matter of time before other
countrys are leading the way and dominating what we are taking for
granted.We should always go forward and never go back.
MTC-00010378
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems to me that this litigation has been going on long
enough and been a great detriment to our economy. It is time to
bring it to a close.
MTC-00010379
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I absolutely believe that Microsoft has been a positive
contributor to the American economy and certainly affected my work
in a most positive way. I am getting tired of Microsoft competitors
drawing out settlement of a case that never should have been brought
in the first place. The objections of Microsoft s competitors are
completely self-serving and never related to the matter at hand.
MTC-00010380
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The US economy has been on hold too long already. Please approve
the settlement so everyone can move on to more important things.
MTC-00010381
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is more than fair. Settle this thing NOW!
MTC-00010382
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the settlement the Justice Department negotiated
with Microsoft. The computer industry business community and
consumers need this issue settled today. Please do what you can to
lay this matter to rest. Thank you Bedford Peterson
HOPCONSULTING.COM
MTC-00010383
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am strongly supportive of the settlement the government and
Microsoft reached.It is time to bring an end to this litigation.
MTC-00010384
From: paul sidler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sirs: We support the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case.
Please stop wasting taxpayers' money and stop penalizing success.
Thank you,
[[Page 25298]]
Paul & Mary Sidler
MTC-00010385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has proven to be a great innovator. A settlement has
been reached. Go with it. The sooner that the cloud hanging over
this great company is handled the sooner our national economy can
start moving again. The economy of the country has been downhill
ever since the Clinton/Reno Injustice Dept. began its attack against
Microsoft. It s time to put that abuse of power to rest.
MTC-00010386
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As consumer I benefit greatly from the cheaper and cheaper PC
and software prices from Microsoft. Let the competition take care of
itself in the market place. Microsoft competitors should compete on
merit and not use political influence to prop them up. I am so sick
and tired of seeing a great company being damaged by the misguided
previous Justice Department.
Sincerely.
MTC-00010387
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I favor the Microsoft Settlement. Please proceed.
MTC-00010388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer I believe it is time to end the litigation against
Microsoft. I believe that the settlement currently agreed upon is
enough. The marketplace is changing and I believe it s time for
Microsoft's competitors to compete instead of litigating against
them.
Thank You
MTC-00010389
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Quit wasting tax payer funds fighting about ways to impeed
business and start working together on ways to improve it.
MTC-00010390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is an odd time that we live in where companies that fall
short in innovation and marketing skills attempt and often succeed
by having the DOJ do their dirty work. I feel that any delays in
this action and/or further punative action towards Microsoft will
have a harmful effect on me the consumer. Microsoft has always in my
opinion offered me affordable and good quality products. And the
marketplace is always the best judge. If in fact consumers did not
believe this OS/2 WordPerfect AmiPro Lotus etc. would all be the
market leaders. Linux may in time actually succeed at this.
MTC-00010391
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I applaud the long overdue settlement and completely agree with
it. The suit has hurt the ecomony in many ways and should have been
settled years ago.
MTC-00010392
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the current settlement proposal is more than
reasonable. It has never been shown that the consumer was in any way
harmed by Microsoft s actions. Certainly they are a tough competitor
but it is clear to me that the consumer has been enormously well
served by Microsoft.
MTC-00010393
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly beleive that the settlement aggreement reached in the
antitrust case against Microsoft is both a reasonable and fair
solution to the matter and urge you to support it rather than
continuing the litigation process.
Best regards.
MTC-00010394
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A settlement that is very tough on Microsoft has been reached
but the competition of Microsoft will not stop. The only reason for
all of this was brought by Competitors of Microsoft who could not
overtake Microsoft in regular business methods so they got the
government to cost Microsoft a lot of money and to stop them from
doing research and development. They had to stop regular business
and just defend themselves from the government who is acting on
behalf of Microsoft competitors. Enough is enough. Put a stop to
this and let one of our major resources go back to developing and
manufacturing.
Thanks.
MTC-00010395
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft law suits should all be settled basis the Nov. 4
2001 settlement proposal or the actions of the nine remaining states
be thrown out of court as they actually represent the efforts of
competitors to harm Microsoft.
MTC-00010396
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs and ma ams I m not a high educated man. I m not a rich
man. I don t begrudge any of this against anyone. I m happy where I
am and don t need anything more but the decision brought against M$
is in my opinion far too lenient almost to the point of it being
ludicrous. I just can t see any punishment being done to a company
who *KNEW* it is/was doing wrong by letting them advertise their
software OS in millions of schools. And this is exactly what I see
it to be. A slap on the wrist and a way for them to take over even
more areas so that if this problem was to pop up again down the road
it would be even harder for the DOJ to fight. Why is it that an
honest working man if he were found doing what M$ has done and
because he doesn't have anything near the money to protect himself
like M$ does would be darn near burned at the stake and ruined for
the rest of his life? I see the government falling to its knees in
just plain weariment and letting M$ just go about its business as
long as they behave themselves from now on . This scares me and it
should scare all peoples of this country. Why not just make *more*
new laws saying they can't do that and if they do it again we'll
slap em on the wrist again (this was some of my sarcasm). I know my
word don't mean much but this is *my* country I have to live with
the ridiculousness of the decision so far and have to suffer for it
all because someone with a lot of money can get away with whatever
they want. I'm sorry if this seemed like a rant...maybe it was a
little but I didn't mean for it to offend no one. I just wanted to
be heard and for the average Joe to be heard once again since it is
us Joes who make up the majority of this country. Thank you for
hearing me out. Take care and be well. John Berger
MTC-00010397
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Before Microsoft made my life easy with its fine products I
would be tearing my hair out with competing products that never
worked. I get great support and service from Microsoft and am happy
as can be with the company the way it is. I understand the case and
the government's reasons for prosecuting it but I hope with all my
heart that brave little Microsoft will not be broken up. It will be
no favor to me and my small business to have more confusion in the
marketplace. Regards Peter Lake
MTC-00010398
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the gov't settled the controversary and with the
economy as it is I believe it will
[[Page 25299]]
be more beneficial for the country to proceed with other pressing
issues. thank you
MTC-00010399
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
100% in favour of the settlement
MTC-00010400
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
One administration goes after Microsoft with a zeal. The next
one comes in and says NO we don't have enough. Why would the Gov't
be interested in a private corporation in the first place. Screw
Clinton and his legal team of Janet and thier zeal to attack
Microsoft. And to the Attorney General of California wait till
election and see how loud I scream over your actions against
Microsoft.....
MTC-00010401
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Envy and greed although basic to ceratain human beings should
not be the determining factor for MICRSOFT by tring to stymie it s
creativity.Time for government regulators to use common sense as we
go head on with international competition that would certainly be
jumping for joy if they landed MSFT to bolster their economy and
work force. By the downsizing of industry with its job creating
opportunities we are witnessing layoffs that will be impacting our
tax base which sustains all the services that everyone thinks they
are entitled to. Paying lawyers to practice their trade is what is
compounding our problems with their skillful tactics manipulating
the system and adding their costs to companies that pass the costs
on to us consumers and taxpayers
MTC-00010402
From: Mary Crockett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am oposed to the government doing any more to prevent
Microsoft from continuing to provide superior products to us the
consumers. The government has spent more than enough money
harrassing Microsoft. It is time for them to leave Microsoft alone.
Thank you
Chuck Crockett
MTC-00010403
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Since when is it against the law for a company to make money?
Please leave Microsoft alone as it was doing just fine. Example of a
problem incurred by the above settlement: I just recently purchased
a new computer with XP Home edition and it is missing some of the
utilities that Microsoft included in their other editions and is
still in XP Pro. This utility is not on the market by other
suppliers and therefore I am unable to purchase and install it on my
XP Home edition computer.
Thank you
MTC-00010404
From: SIMONE MALONEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The arguments that I've heard on this case, that Microsoft
prevents competition, seem unfounded to me. When I purchased my
computer about 4 years ago, I was asked what system I wanted. Having
experienced Microsoft windows on the original Apple computer, I
could not refuse to have windows installed on my computer. I don't
know much about other systems except for DOS but I know I wanted the
system that I was most familiar with. Had I learned about other
systems, my selection might have been different but it's rather
unlikely. I believe Microsoft built ``a better mouse trap''. Let the
competition deal with Microsoft. Save my tax dollars.
Simone Maloney
171 Russell St.
Manchester, NH 03104
MTC-00010405
From: KV1030
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To the judge of the federal trial court hearing the Microsoft
Corp. case, I am writing to express my views on the proposed
settlement with Microsoft Corp. The current settlement which is
being pursued by the U.S. Department of Justice and some of the
participating states does not in my opinion offer the protections
required of such a settlement for either consumers or competing
companies. I believe much stronger remedies are called for to
prevent further abuses by Microsoft Corp., correct ongoing anti-
competitive behavior by this company, and deprive Microsoft Corp. of
its illegal gains. I believe the states which are dissenting from
the current settlement have reasonable concerns regarding the
current proposal. I am in favor of more stringent remedies to
control Microsoft Corp.
Sincerely,
Mark Hartelt
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
MTC-00010406
From: Jacques Dupuis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft case
To Whom It May Concern:
As a consumer I am curious to know just how many consumers have
you had testified at the Microsoft trial. Speaking for myself, I
remember having to pay $500 to $700 dollars for DOS software like
Word Perfect or Word Star. With Microsoft you can buy an entire
suite of software for much less than that, Microsoft Office. Where
did the consumer is getting hurt here? Please do me a favor and
resolve your Wars on Drug and go after ``real'' Criminals to really
protect your taxpayers (consumers). Some States don't even have
enough money to have all the prosecutors needed to prosecute our
criminals and now you are looking to make criminals of anyone that
is successful and who is keeping its customers (consumers) happy. I
just wish our own government could do as good of a job as Microsoft
does. By the way, why don't you turn all of your attorneys and
prosecute government violations of our Great Constitution that have
been violated by agencies of the government. The free marketplace
has always and always will do a much better job than any Government
can ever hope to achieve. Give it up!!!
Jacques Dupuis ``I would rather have a mind opened by fact than
one closed by belief.
MTC-00010407
From: James M. Tarpley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
I agree whole heartedly with your recent decision regarding
Microsoft's absurdly self serving settlement offer.
James M. Tarpley
216 Sea Isle Point
Atlantic Beach NC 28512-5936
voice: (252) 247-7813
eFax: (425) 984-8843
MTC-00010408
From: Craig Juel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I believe the whole antitrust case against Microsoft over the
last three years has been a colossal waste of time and money. The
central issues of the case are no longer of consequence. I do not
support the breakup of Microsoft am in support of the settlement
because this needs to end as soon as possible for our IT sector to
return to normal. Under the terms of the settlement I am glad to see
that Microsoft will be increasing its relations with computer makers
and software developers for the sake of stopping the ``muscling
out'' strategy, which might have occurred in the past. I am also
happy to see that a three person technical committee will be formed
to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and assist
with dispute resolution. The nine states that still oppose should be
urged to drop the suit. The best interest of the public will be
served when free enterprise is allowed to be on its way and
jumpstart our economy out of recession. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Craig Juel
MTC-00010409
From: Massoud Javadi
To: Microsoft ATR,Senator Gramm,Senator
[[Page 25300]]
Hutchison,Rep....
Date: 1/11/02 6:23pm
Subject: Oppose Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
I have written today to comment on the settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. While I understand
the honorable intentions of the judge and court in settling the case
in order to prompt the economic recovery of the nation's largest
company and thereby, in theory, to prompt economic recovery of the
nation, I deplore the toothless settlement that has been accepted by
the Department of Justice prosecutors. There are three things I feel
must be included in a settlement that would enact real change in the
operating system market and allow for true competition:
1. Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
2. The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications for Windows
operating systems), which is already part of the proposed
settlement.
3. Microsoft's success, while due in some part to internal
innovation, relies heavily on technologies developed by the public
sector. The Internet and much of the networking and software
technology essential for Microsoft Windows have been fostered by
federal grants and Department of Defense research money. As such,
any Microsoft networking protocols which build or modify these
publicly developed standards must be published in full and approved
by an independent network protocol body. This will prevent Microsoft
from using their market position to seize de facto control of the
Internet.
I trust that you will attempt to enact real and meaningful
change in the operating system market. This is a true national
security issue. Microsoft may be important to the nation's economy
in the short term, but long term economic security can only come
from a free and efficient market for operating systems and
networking technologies.
I care about these issues and I vote.
Massoud Javadi
806 Oakley
Houston, TX 77006
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010410
From: Fernando Cerda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please, leave Microsoft alone!!!! You have been too harsh on
them already. Bill Gates has changed how the world works!!! Are you
punishing him because he has built an empire on his brain power?
Loriann Cerda-Donoso
MTC-00010412
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Sirs:
I am contacting you to express my desire that the action against
Microsoft go no further. Besides the fact that it is unfair to
Microsoft and it's shareholders, it cannot be the best thing for the
US economy. Enough already!
Best regards,
Paul Moraff
4 haynes Avenue
West Islip, NY 11795
MTC-00010413
From: nemesis enforcer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:32pm
Isn't it obvious what's going on? They aren't trying to
monopolize, they are conquering the world. While this anti trust
suit goes to shambles, its a distraction as the big `M' buys up
other companies to gain world domination in the computer industry. I
cant believe my tax dollars actually pay some of your salaries. Look
at the headaches from the at@t break up, the dereg of CATV etc. Is
it really creating competition? Didn't you read the article about a
$250 a month cable TV bill from aol? Penalize the company...they
should be forced to refund every registered windows product to its
owner in full. Did you know that not only Microsoft Csr really
sucks, the phone call is paid for by the consumer, and they keep you
on hold for an hour before they say hello.
MTC-00010414
From: pierce@westernfinancial group.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. The Microsoft settlement is fair and will help
the nation s technology and economy to move forward. The government
s legal action against Microsoft has been dragging on for years and
at last a fair settlement is at hand. Please stop the endless cycle
of litigation now.
Respectfully submitted
Lawrence W. Pierce
MTC-00010416
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this legal assault on Microsoft as the Justice
Department and most of the States want to do. Do not allow a handful
of MS competitors to use their intrastate political influence to
undermine the best interests of the rest of American consumers.
MTC-00010418
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement reached is eminently better than ongoing
litigation and uncertainty. Judge Posner correctly realized that
resolution of this dispute is far more important than undue
condescension to the collateral demands of bit players and special
interests. Please approve and adopt the settlement achieved.
MTC-00010419
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like the Microsoft suit completed. Microsoft has done a
great deal for this country and the pending agreement should be
accepted. thank you
MTC-00010420
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cut out the nonsense and allow this settlement to go to
finality. Yjr settlement should be approved totally and completely.
MTC-00010421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle this issue & let us move on.
MTC-00010422
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to get this matter settled. Consumers have been
helped by Microsoft technology not hurt. I write a column on
computer technology for a legal newspaper and have seen the
tremendous advantages of Microsoft software for lawyers as well as
all consumers. The lawsuit is based on a faulty premise that
consumers have been injured. We should put this whole matter to rest
and let the computer world get on with producing better and better
products.
MTC-00010423
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let our courts put this case to closure. Only the
companies that are not as advanced as Microsoft want to keep it open
and active. It is at the stage it is a shear waste of the courts
time and the taxpayers money.
Cordially
Dick A. Campbell
MTC-00010424
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25301]]
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is another example of Microsoft s illegal and unethical
tactics. The justice department really fell down on their job in
this case. Microsoft has gotten away with murder and has been
hindering innovation unless it is done Microsoft s way and fills
Microsoft/s pockets. Now is the time to stop this monolopy find a
way to let the innovation and technical leadership of others be
successful.
MTC-00010425
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Unlike a company such as Enron Microsoft contributes to the
quality of living of individuals around the globe. They are a
company whose very existance pivots on constantly evolving
technology. Leave them alone. Unless obvious blatant violations of
monopoly laws take place allow them to explore new fields without
interferance from jealous competitors.
MTC-00010426
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Consumer choices not government management of innovation are the
best marketplace regulators. New regulations and unnecessary
lawsuits against technology companies will stifle innovation and
result in consumers paying higher prices. I am in favor of ending
the Microsoft matter as soon as possible and getting on with
business.
MTC-00010427
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tell the cry babies to go home and create something. Enough is
Enough!
MTC-00010428
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS JUST TRYING TO GET SOME OF THE MONEY
FROM MICRO-SOFT THE GOVERNMENT IS LOOKING FOR A GOLDEN CALF.
MTC-00010429
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop wasting money and causing consumers problems. Drop your
hounding of Microsoft. Start investigating Emromgate.
MTC-00010430
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
please go ahead with the agreed settlement. Further action is
not needed
MTC-00010431
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let a fair impartial court make a fair judgment on this big
problem nwith out any out side influence.
MTC-00010432
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is time this suit against Microsoft is settled so
that they can get on with the good work they have done for so long.
It seems to me that if their competitors build a better mouse trap
then they won t have to worry about what Microsoft does. What ever
happened to free enterprise?
MTC-00010433
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement with Microsoft is more than fair.
If a company invents and developes a product I do not thikn that the
competition should have the right to capitalize on someone elses
hard work. I think that Microsoft should now be left alone by those
jealous want-to-be cometitors and government agencies.
MTC-00010434
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A decision of the court has been rendered....MOVE ON! Why is it
that the vocal minority do not accept rulings that do not favor
their agendas? If our goverment continues to involve itself to the
extent of involvement in the Microsoft case we can expect to see
bright minds discouraged from creating the future. Is this what our
goverment wants? I m tired of listening to the goverment and the
power hungry who continue this fight. To them I say Get a life!
MTC-00010435
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement that has been offered. As a former
teacher who had to use MacIntosh products I know that the advent of
Windows based software was a financial boon to the classroom. The
same products in the Mac format were many times higher priced.
Windows brought software to the teacher and consumer in varieties
which were affordable. At home we were lucky to have word processing
and a spread sheet. The array of affordable products brought with
the coming of Windows gives lie to the charge that Microsoft has
hurt the consumer. The states that have not settled have business
interests that hope to flourish by hurting Microsoft rather than by
competing through the marketplace.
MTC-00010436
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement was more than fair. It is unfortunate that
because Microsoft and Gates did not make the required contributions
to Clinton and Company s campaign coffers that the Justice
Department initiated this action in the first place. It is time to
stop this nonsense now. Enough is enough.
MTC-00010437
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Accept the settlemnt in the Microsoft case to allow the country
to continue to recover from slow recession.
MTC-00010438
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough taxpayer money has been spent already to benefit the
opponents of Microsoft. The proposed settlement is more than fair in
support of a flawed judgement. The California AG should be
prosecuted for his irresponsible pursuit of this judgement while
being paid off by MS competitors.
Bob Russell
MTC-00010439
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair as it is. Please keep
it from being changed.
MTC-00010440
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
End this case now ! Americas strength is free enterprise.
Competition ! Winners and losers ! The govn t(bureaucrat)can t
tolerate competition !!!!
MTC-00010441
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Proceed with the settlement. This seams to be the best for every
one concerned.
MTC-00010442
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let the decision stand!
MTC-00010443
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having no personal risk in this case I do have some considerable
interest. I have been using computers for years. When the PC
[[Page 25302]]
started to become popular the biggest complaint was cost limited
software availability and compatibility. When Windows was introduced
the average user embraced it because it opened away to eliminate
many of the above concerns. I recently purchased my 3rd Pentium
Series Machine. The first was a 100Mhz Pentium with all of the major
available bells and whistles. Six years ago that machine cost over
$3 000. This November I bought a 1.9Ghz Pentium 4 with bells and
whistles that would reduce my original Pentium to nothing more than
a bad door stop. The cost was in the low $2000 range. 19+ times the
computing power 6 times the memory 80 sized the hard drive capacity
16 times more video storage and the list goes on and a state of the
art Microsoft Operating System XP. The point of the story is that as
a consumer I have not been hurt at all quite the contrary. I have a
choice of software that staggers the imagination and all of it is
cheaper faster and better than what was available even 6 years ago.
I have no doubt that Microsoft took advantage of its position of
prominence and power. Does everyone at some time. Usually! Let s
check out the White House for some recent examples. To me the
settlement on the table should be approved and we should all move on
to more interesting innovations and concerns. Justice will be and
has been served. It is time to get out of the media s glare and just
move on!
MTC-00010444
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this soon. The agreement seems to have been hashed
out and is merely waiting for the final nod. Microsoft has been an
asset to the industrial world. Let s get on with it please. I am
very happy this did not happen when the automobile was first
invented. Th threat to the buggy whip manufacturers would have had
all of the caves in Kentucky full of buggy whips because of the
unfair competition to their industry.
Thank you.
MTC-00010445
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Justice Dept is wrong and Microsoft should be broken
up.
MTC-00010447
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support Microsoft in its negotiations with the
government and think far too much time money and effort has been
spent on this case to the detriment to the consumer.
MTC-00010448
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Microsoft will have to live under terms that
are equitalbe and just. Don t let competition taint the judicial
process. Finalize the settlement.
MTC-00010449
From: Stephen T. Spray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:41pm
Subject: Hats off to Judge Motz
Congratulations to Judge Motz for stepping up to the plate and
stiking a blow for business competition. When the guilty party is
allowed to be the architect of their own punishment, then you get
the kind of deal that Microsoft was going to use to increase their
control of the market and stifle the competition.
Any user of Microsoft products, as I have been for years, knows
how they have built in to their operating system programming to
preclude or greatly limit users who wish to use any competitive
product, such as the Netscape browser. The frustration to any
intelligent user can lead to out and out anger, at the ways they
constantly tout and build in methods to make their own products
easier to use, and limit or deny ordinary users the ability to
effectively procure and use competitive products.
Microsoft contends that they have been good for competition, but
that would be exactly like contending John D. Rockefeller was good
for competitive pricing in the oil industry. Baloney is baloney any
way it is packaged.
Stephen T. Spray
Huntsville, Alabama
MTC-00010450
From: Debbie Tropiano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Debbie Tropiano
1305 Brianna Court
Cedar Park, TX 78613
January 11, 2002
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To the United States Department of Justice:
I too am opposed to the settlement as I feel that it
inadequately punishes Microsoft for their behavior, has too many
loopholes for Microsoft to use to continue the same behavior and
insufficient penalties if they don't abide by the settlement.
Sincerely,
Debbie Tropiano
MTC-00010451
From: rima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I fail to see how settling a court case without punishing the
offender, or even stopping the criminal behavior, is anywhere close
to being in the good of the country. It makes one wonder how much
microsoft money changed hands, to make the settlement happen.
Jon Rima
MTC-00010452
From: Ken Woodmansee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:54pm
Subject: comments
Alternates to Microsoft Windows, such as Mac and Linux, will
never be successful until standard Microsoft applications like
Microsoft Office work equally well for all operating systems. When
the same company owns the operating system and the applications,
there is no incentive to create compatible versions for your
competition. Microsoft's applications have become the defacto
standard for most businesses. Even though Microsoft Windows is
greatly inferior to other available operating systems, there is no
choice for the consumer because the applications needed for
performing the most common tasks are not available for other
environments.
Ken Woodmansee
Director of Engineering
Cordell, Inc.--``Network Solution Experts''
http://www.cordell.com
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 966-4402
FAX: (626) 339-2582
MTC-00010453
From: Holmes, Loren T
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Treatment
Why are you being so soft on these Microsoft liars and crocks?
They need to be split up so that can't keep others from being
inovative.
MTC-00010454
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let Microsoft continue to do the job that they have been doing.
They have earned everything that they have (Bill Gates risked his
future to build the company so he deserves the profit). If his
competitors cannot keep up or pass him--tough. That is called smart
business and he has earned it.
MTC-00010455
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After reading all the Microsoft competition gobbledegook
parroted by the Justice Department in their case against Microsoft I
think the settlement reached betweeen Microsoft the Justice
Department and 9 of the 18 states arrayed against Microsoft is a
more than adequate punishment for a company which literally
outcompeted its competitors. I don t know what is going through the
minds of Justice Department officials when they take the word of
failing competitors against one of if not the most successful
company in the United States Microsoft and attempt to impose
penalties which handicap Microsoft and provide Microsoft s
intellectual property to their competitors so that those competitors
can MAYBE compete successfully against Microsoft. The 9 states which
did not accept the settlement are those states in which
[[Page 25303]]
Microsoft s main failing competitors have their home offices and
those states are bowing to pressure from those companies to
eliminate their competition for them. Microsoft has always provided
some of the best most innovative software at reasonable prices to
their users. Those that say elsewise obviously have an axe to grind.
The settlement reached between the Government 9 states and Microsoft
is MORE THAN FAIR to the prosecution will benefit educational
institutions and will be beneficial to those crybaby corporations
who were unable to compete fairly with Microsoft.
MTC-00010456
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave as is I believe it is more than fair.
MTC-00010457
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s time to settle this case. It is not the role of government
to penalize successful companies so that competitors can succeed
with inferior products or marketing. The remaining opposition to the
settlement are still in it for the purpose of rescuing the competing
companies in their states. The only outcome of continuing the suit
is detrimental to the consumer. The role of government is to protect
consumers not to punish them. I strongly recommend that the agreed
upon settlement be implemented as soon as possible so as to prevent
ever-escalating cost to the taxpayer as well as the technology
consumer.
MTC-00010458
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a retired person who has used the Microsoft programs on my
former business and now home computer. Those groups who oppose the
settlement agreement should thank Microsoft for the development of
computer software and thus gave them the opportunity to participate
in software development. Now they want to destroy the company that
made this technology possible. I support the agreements reached in
the settlement agreement put forward by Microsoft. Thanks for
registering my support.
MTC-00010459
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to stop needless expense and give a kick starrt to
our economy by accepting the agreements reached between many of the
States and Microsoft.
MTC-00010460
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get on with the settlement!!
MTC-00010461
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement agreement is fair and adquate. Going on and on
hurts technology advancement and impedes research in the interest of
the public. Enough is enough---lets call it quits and standardize
the settlement for all parties based upon the federal agreement
MTC-00010462
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Accept the proposed settlement and put an end to this stupid law
suit by competitors against a successful company.
MTC-00010463
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Without Microsoft there would be not be a hi-tech industry. The
IBM like companies wants to see to big business like Banks Insurance
companies and other Government sponsored contractors because the
non-value added in these contract can Bankrupt the public. Microsoft
is the heart and sole of the HOME Hi Tech market and has been the
only serious investor in this market. I do not own one share of
Microsoft stock but I have always recognized their leadership in
promoting the sale of every high tech company s hardware. Through
their evolution of the software the Hard Disk drive technology
exceeded expectations the video card market now sell cards for more
than some computers the 19 inch monitor sound card makers
motherboard and memory chip makers all sell for less than 5-30% of
their 1992 prices. ZEROX UNIX V OS2 Mac OS and many other Windows
competitive operating systems can only blame their R&D investments
and management. Let Micorsoft continue to help our country grow and
spend more energy on ENRON Terrorist and many other subjects that
are trying to destroy our way of life. Microsoft has made America
proud and unless you believe that they are also hiring A. Anderson
to do their accounting we should leave them along without enforcing
any consent decree. This Eugene Crew wants to steal money from the
the Microsoft company. California does not want computers for their
students they want money that they will distribute. Sound familiar?
Sounds like the energy crisis that they regulate!!! Well sorry that
this comment arrived too late.
MTC-00010464
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There has been too much money and time spent on this so-called
case in the first place. The problem with the Microsoft competitors
is nothing but sour grapes and jeolosy that they couldn t break up a
fine company and make a profit out of it for themselves. What they
really want to see is the collaps of Microsoft so they can grab for
themselves what is left over and this is the only way they can see
of doing it. Settle this now because it these other companies get
their way the cost of this technology will go through the roof if
they get their hands on it.
MTC-00010465
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Microsoft Settlement This settlement is a tough fair and
reasonable compromise and is in the best interest of everyone.
MTC-00010466
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough already! I am a retired Marine having served 26 1/2
years.I fought for this country because above all else it was a
country that rewarded those who were willing to step into the arena
and give their all for the benefit of others. No greater example of
this exist than Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It is beyond comprehesion
that Microsoft is being penalized for being innovative. Not only
have they made it possible for virtually EVERYONE to be able to use
a computer but have done it without the greed we see in the
companies and politicians who are attacking them. Please use some
common sense and end this unjustified attack--not for Microsoft but
for the good of this country I hope we both love.
Thank you
Kindly
Joe and Sandy Sucha
MTC-00010467
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
All people/parties who have pursued this case against Microsoft
are guilty of FRAUD WASTE and ABUSE of Tax Payers Money. They should
all be made to reimburse (with triple damages) the American tax
payers and Microsoft.
MTC-00010468
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have worked with Microsoft products for years--I have also
worked with products from Sun and Netscape among others. I find the
Microsoft suite of servers and OSs far more valuable and innovative
than Sun products and their browser blows Netscape's away. This
isn't because Microsoft is some monopoly (It's not--you're free to
write your own OS right now break out the assembler books and have
at it) but because the products serve a wider audience BETTER than
their competitors. Why is Microsoft's browser BETTER than Netscape's
(oops I mean AOL's of course) if Microsoft is this slothful behemoth
that isn't good for consumers as their detractors say? Because
[[Page 25304]]
those attacking Microsoft can't win in the marketplace so they want
to use the court system like a bunch of stooges. Don't let this
happen. Any action by the government against Microsoft will follow
in Judge Jackson's path of bias and be HURTFUL to innovation not
helpful. Leave competition to the marketplace instead of letting a
bunch of lack-luster whiners insult competition in the courtroom.
MTC-00010469
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement agreed upon between the DOJ and Microsoft
is fair and it is time we all move on.
MTC-00010470
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly favor the settlement. Long drawn out litigation in a
dynamic fast changing industry such as software obviously hurts the
public by diverting management attention away from innovation to
serve the public and diverting monies to lawyers that should be
spent on innovation. The best minds of Microsoft the Justice
Department and responsible state attorney generals have now agreed.
The only disagreement comes from some attorney generals such as the
AG in my state of Massachusetts who are subject to powerful
political pressures from Microsoft competitors whose interests do
not necessarily concur with the public interest.
MTC-00010471
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The waste of time and money caused by litigation over Microsoft
needs to come to an end. The settlement seems like a fair solution.
What Microsoft has done for the last 10 or so years is make personal
computing accessible and affordable for the average consumer as well
as creating a standardized platform for almost everyone who uses a
PC. Microsoft has in no way hurt consumers. It is to the benefit of
the national economy to get this thing over with.
Sincerely
Carol Shukle
MTC-00010472
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How can it be that Microsoft s business practices are illegal?
Sure they are heavy-handed yes they could be toned down I ll agree
with that. Yes they are tough yet that is good for the industry as a
whole. Their competition should stop complaining and start
competing. If a software company wants to beat Microsoft do it on
the store shelves not the courts. The competition simply needs to
(in simple terms) out program and improve upon the available
technology. Develop new and better ways of doing things and stick to
it. Unlike in the past when a software company would develop a great
program then their support would vanish and the product would
stagnate up until now Microsoft would step in and basically finish
the job that others left by the wayside. Take for instance Netscape
it took over 4 years for them to finally improve upon the program
meanwhile Microsoft kept driving the platform foreward with their
Internet Explorer. Simply put the competition needs to stop whining
and hire better programmers come up with new and exciting products.
Microsoft s business practices don t affect me as a consumer as a
matter of fact I simply prefer Microsoft products because they are
quality products and should troubles exist the support is second to
none always has been
K. Thomas
MTC-00010473
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is correct. It is time we stopped bashing
successful companies in this country when there is in truth
competition.
MTC-00010474
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have reviewed the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. I
believe it is a fair settlement for all parties. In the interests of
the public & the technology industry I hope it will be accepted soon
so this case will be ended.
MTC-00010475
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse: I honestly believe that M/Soft has gone through
enough trying to prove that they are not pirates dishonest or trying
to break up other companies. They have been unable to compete and by
now should recognize that declaring a truce would be the best way
out. The ENRON debacle is one that should be pushed to the front.
Many politicians and other government officials are involved and
undoubtedly are going to be excused for their actions. The average
American is disgusted with what is going on in the country today.
Stop the Microsoft debacle and get to more important things.
Respectfully
C. R. Rizzuto
MTC-00010476
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Simply: Leave Microsoft alone. No user to my knowledge
complained about its business practices. I seem to recall that
Netscape did therefore the govt took action. It s a bunch of sour
grapes. I applaud Microsoft for all of its products.
MTC-00010477
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair. Please finalize the
settlement.
MTC-00010478
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Microsoft should be left alone. The Government really
messed up our telephone system when they messed with Ma Bell.
MTC-00010479
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Word on the street is Microsoft did not donate enough money
to the Polititions and the Clinton Group. That is the only reason
this Company was envolved. As a Sales Person and see the Federal
Goverment going after any Company Me and many people in my sales
terretory are looling at a Big Brother Type of Goverment. Now that
the Dirt bags are out of the White House The Federal Government
should let all people do Business and let the Market handle
competition not federal Goverment
MTC-00010482
From: Bill Pratt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Honorable Federal District Court Judge,
Please find for Microsoft and their proposed settlement. I
believe to do so is in the best interest of the public. As a
taxpayer, I have watched and waited too long as our tax dollars are
misspent on this case. It is my strong belief that these additional
States which refuse to settle are doing so only for their own
selfish monetary purposes and not in the best interest of their
people or the United States. I believe it is time to close the book
on this. I strongly support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in
their desire to settle this lawsuit. Please make the correct
decision on behalf of the American public and settle this case.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
R. William Pratt
7020 Roundelay Rd. N.
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
MTC-00010483
From: Wendy Viramontes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wendy Viramontes
1520 Jody Avenue
Lebanon, PA 17046
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
[[Page 25305]]
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wendy S. Viramontes
MTC-00010484
From: Fred H. Greenwood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred H. Greenwood
7 Kirkwood Road
West Hartford, CT 06117-2830
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Fred H. Greenwood
MTC-00010485
From: Nancy Marie Regets
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy Marie Regets
167 Millrace Circle
Aiken, SC 29805-9381
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Nancy Marie Regets
MTC-00010486
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I agree with the judge that Microsoft does not deserve the
ability to increase their marketshare by giving away their product.
Giving away their product is like letting little kids have a taste
of free drugs. You know Microsoft will benefit by upgrades. Let
Microsoft compete in the market, just as everyone else does.
Regards,
Rick Redfern
714.894.0407
MTC-00010487
From: Les Lohmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Renata B. Hesse:
As a U.S. citizen living abroad, I am very concerned that the
proposed settlement with Microsoft does not begin to address the
harm done to the software industry nor does it create an environment
where anticompetetitive behaviors will be stopped.
In order for the software industry to recover, the retail
software (especially the word processing, spreadsheet and browser
software) must be separated from the operating system. No paper wall
will achieve this -the company must be split in two (at least).
Interestingly, the stockholders of MS will benefit far more
under this scenario based on the results of significant breakups of
the past. The economy of the U.S. will benefit and the market for
software and related services will grow.
During this period of recession, permitting recessionary forces,
such as anticompetetitive monopolistic behavior, can only hurt us
all.
Leslie John Lohmann
mailto:[email protected]
fon/fax: 81-3/5987-0723
2-26-6 Nukui
Nerima-ku, Tokyo 176-0021
MTC-00010488
From: Judy Sarris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
I'm tired of the antitrust politicians wasting our money on
suits that have no value and are meaningless in a free market
economy anyway. The only place there can be a real monopoly is if
the government intervenes and restricts competition. As long as
there is a free market, the best/highest value/most desireable
product will ultimately win. Only government can give a monopoly to
a company or companies and keep this from happening. The government
should not be in the business of siding with or bailing out
companies that could not compete in the marketplace so are looking
for the courts to do for them what they couldn't do for themselves.
Microsoft has done more for the average technology consumer than
any company in the history of the industry. They have built better
software, provided better service, and done it for less than any
competitor. They have increased the quality and reduced the cost of
desktop software faster than any other product of any sort has ever
done. THAT is why Microsoft is the giant it is--because its products
and service are better than the alternatives.
The government wasted billions of our dollars pursuing IBM for
naught. By the time anything happened, IBM was no longer a dominant
player. The same could happen to Microsoft if they let the
competition get ahead of them. As long as they know that (and they
live and breathe it every day), they will continue to build more
value for the consumer. Leave them alone and let them do it.
The anti trust cops who claim to have the consumer's interest at
heart are hurting those same consumers more than Microsoft ever
will.
1. The drain on Microsoft's time and resources detract from
their ability to build the software we all want and can't get from
lesser rivals.
[[Page 25306]]
2. The drain on Microsoft's finances reduces the value of their
stock which is one of the most widely held in the nation.
3. The government is wasting billions of our tax dollars to
support this boondoggle and to effectively subsidize competitors who
can't compete on the merits. DROP THIS SUIT!!!
Judy
MTC-00010489
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft School System Donation/Settlement
DOJ:
It is important to maintain a level playing field and I'm sure
that MSFT pushed the envelope....but: try to keep in mind that no
other platform, system, inter-connectivity is as productive as MSFT,
whether student, business or military, its not even close! To even
point students in the direction of Apple, Linux to some degree, is
stagnating the analytical growing mind.
I started 35 yrs ago with a sliderule & punch cards, I know
whereof I speak!
Dirk Tucker
Naples, Fl
MTC-00010490
From: Dennis Matthias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
I strongly support the Justice Department settllement with
Microsoft. We both use Microsoft Windows at home and at work. It
seems a fair settlement and I believe it is time to move on and let
U.S. companies continue to lead the world in tecnology.
Yours Truly,
Dennis and Virginia Matthias
4105 Heritage Hill Lane
Ellicott City, MD 21042
MTC-00010491
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If Clinton worried more about the terrorists instead of picking
on Mircosoft we would not be in the War that we are now in. Enough
of picking on a wonderful company--let s end this unfair
treatment...mwc
MTC-00010492
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Accept the settlement and let Him get on with his life. He was
smart enough to give all this before others even thought about it.
Let Bill gates alone Now.
MTC-00010493
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it s time to let Microsoft alone and accept the Judges
decision. They have done wonders with Dos and Windows.
MTC-00010494
From: Bob Wiley
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 7:41pm
Subject: Please settle the case with Microsoft!
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court. In my view, there
can be no valid objection to this settlement because every major
finding of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed with a
targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and prevents the
behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Robert L. Wiley III
Managing Director
Sound Capital Partners
701 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 264-2110
MTC-00010495
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Personally, as one who has been in the computer industry since
the days of the Apple II, I feel that Microsoft has done far more to
aid the computer industry and this ecconomy than it has ever done to
harm it. I remember all too well the days of the ``tower of babel''
becuase of this or that small company attempting to develop some
form of proprietay software... Apple, in many ways, still is a
closed system. But, as there was a finding of monopolistic
practices, let the federal case stand.
From where I sit, it appears as though the states are simply
looking for a revenue source for their own uses and have less
interest in ``justice'' than in seeing how deep Microsoft's pockets
can be... IF there were monopolistic practices engaged in, it is the
consumer and private business who took the hits... and I don't hear
anybody talking about helping out the actual injured parties
(assuming that there really are any) in this case.
Furthermore, while Apple makes a decent product, I find it
facinating that, in the imaginary name of ``competition'', our
students are being taught using computers that hold a relatively
small place in the overall population of desktop systems installed
in home, government and workplace environments. The states
apparently desire to believe that allowing Microsoft to actually put
state of the art systems in the schools would further displace
Apple... so, rather than focus on what is actually the right thing
to do for the education system and the citizenry served by it, they
would prefer to keep us safe from Microsoft and pocket the money
instead (... kinda' reminds me of all the states who legalized
lotteries and ``riverboat'' gambling under the pretext of it helping
the education system and then failed to inform that, while
[[Page 25307]]
the funds may actually be applied to schools, the existing school
budgets would be offset by all or a portion of those proceeds raised
by ``legal gambling''....
Further, I find two great ironies in the whole Microsoft case:
1:) Microsoft became a monopoly becuase of government contacting and
purchasing practices (I worked as a contractor and had some
familiarity with the proceedures) in the first place, while the
government was not the sole reason for this, their demand for the
interconectivity of the Microsoft products and the standards
provided were key to the demand made for the product... 2:) The
originial impetus for the case was brought by AOL and Netscape....
two who have become one and a veritable monopoly in their own
right... So... needless to say... my opinon is, make the original
federal settlement binding on all states.
Thank you for your time...
James Winkler
Metamora, Illinois
MTC-00010496
From: Scott Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:47pm
Subject: microsoft monopoly
I agree strongly with not allowing MIcrosoft to donate computers
for compensation in the lawsuit against it's anticompetitive
tactics. The windows operating system is an inferior system which is
maintained by Microsoft's monopoly power. The company consistently
misuses its power and needs to be controlled.
Scott Grant
MTC-00010497
From: David Balts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:57pm
Subject: my opinion
Dear Justice Department,
I just heard of the denial of acceptance of the proposed
Microsoft settlement. While I can understand the concerns put forth
by the companies that object to it, I feel it was a settlement that
helped most concerned.
While no one, me included, wants to see any company get away
with overcharging customers, I also see a lot of good in the
settlement. It would benefit the neediest of schools while still
leaving Microsoft a viable intact company.
Unfortunately there are, and always will be, people that won't
be happy until Microsoft is broken down and crushed into the dirt.
And then I wonder if they would still even be happy. They seem to be
only looking for someone to tear apart their competition so they can
thrive. A view I'm sure they wouldn't have had they become the
software of choice. While competition is good, I believe these
companies and individuals only want to gain ground at Microsoft's
expense.
Believe me, as someone who was around using computers through
times when there was no major player or standards I can remember
that it was no fun. No one's software, or even information, could be
shared with anyone else without great pains and lots of problems. We
all cried out for some kind of standard. I, for one, was glad to
finally see a standard spread through the industry. Unfortunately
for those whose standard wasn't chosen, it was Microsoft that rose
to the top.
While most Microsoft products are hardly perfect, (and who's
are?) they do allow many different people running many different
programs to communicate and share data together. I would NEVER want
to go back to the days of everyone doing their own thing with no
standards available.
This has become a case of the best product available becoming
the most widely used. But to some it has just become a 'tear down
and rip apart Microsoft at any cost' situation. And its funny how
those that weren't chosen as the majority standard tend to be
yelling the loudest. It was just a clear case of the public choosing
the best that was available at the time and using it. Now instead of
developing something that can compete or even win out over any
Microsoft product, all the competition wants to do is yell foul and
hope the justice department eliminates or severely restricts their
competition.
Believe me, the American people are smart. If they see something
else developed that will do what they want done better than they are
able to do it now, they will choose that product and use it. No
matter what Microsoft or anyone else tries to do. Don't diminish the
peoples ability.
This situation reminds me of the break-up of the telephone
system. While looking good on paper, trying to give other companies
a chance and the consumer more choices and thus lower costs, it has
done nothing but the opposite. We are all paying more and most
people throw their hand up in disgust when it comes to figuring out
what's best. And some companies don't even wait for the consumer to
decide. They just grab all the new customers they can any way
possible and the consumer usually ends up frustrated and paying in
the end. Plus the system has never worked together as well as it
used to.
I realize these situations can be very different. But in some
ways they can be very similar.
Please keep the consumer in mind when you make your decisions,
and not the desires and demands of those too involved to decide
effectively. Most of Microsoft's competitors now feel that if they
complain loud enough someone will finally listen and rule in their
favor. While I'm not advocating letting Microsoft off Scott-free, I
do feel both the good Microsoft has brought the consumer must be
considered along with the bad.
I use Microsoft products, along with other brands, and chose
each because I felt they did what I needed to have done the most
effectively. And I did this ONLY after looking at everything
available. Some companies don't like it because Microsoft still
offers some of the best products available. If other companies
develop better software I, and the American public, are smart enough
to choose what's best for our needs. That's the way this great
country works.
We don't need someone to make our decisions for us, especially
the Microsoft competitors that seem to be complaining the loudest.
Thank-You.
David E. Balts
224 S 16th St, #2
La Crosse, WI 54601
608-784-6703
Age: 43
[email protected]
MTC-00010498
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My vote is to put an end to this problem and let us get on with
life.
Sincerely,
Louise Walls # 519
10-10 So. Rockwood Blvd
Spokane, WA 99202
MTC-00010499
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:02pm
Subject: Good Microsoft Decision Today
Judge Motz, c/o Robert Wolinsky,
Thank you for your courage in the Microsoft opinion released
today. Although I'm a Microsoft shareholder, I don't believe
Microsoft should be allowed to undermine Apple by turning an
antitrust penalty into a marketing triumph and give away Microsoft
products to schools. A more appropriate penalty might be an award of
$$ for those same schools to buy Apple products, or a mandatory
rebate of some amount to all Microsoft customers. Having seen the
press reports of today's decision, I have faith that you'll do
justice.
MTC-00010500
From: Elizabeth Pearson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elizabeth Pearson
638 Hawthorne Av
Elmhurst, IL 60126
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more
[[Page 25308]]
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Pearson
MTC-00010501
From: joseph brumm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:03pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed antitrust
settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft needs competition. Without
competition Microsoft will have no reason to ever improve its
products. Microsoft's products, in my opinion have steadily degraded
as the company grew. After all, if there is no steady, present,
competition, why would they need to improve their products.
Microsoft has, over the years destroyed any competition that has
ever come against them. The reasoning, it's good business. But our
nation was founded on a set of ethical values. By this ruthless
practice, Microsoft abides by none. They consistently make what I
consider to be libelous, slanderous statements about any competition
that ever points their way. For technology to advance, competition
is a necessity. Else the tech industry will be like George Orwell's
Animal Farm. The pigs (no harsh implications toward microsoft
intended) will keep telling us how much better our life is.
And we will be forced to believe them. Because we have no basis
for comparison any longer.
I cannot make suggestions as for their penalties, as I do not
know all the matters of fact or law, but the penalties should be
severe. At least enough so Microsoft cannot merely shake them off
and continue with a monopoly. Thank you for your time,
consideration, and willingness to listen, I submit Very
Respectfully, Joseph Brumm
MTC-00010502
From: Michelle Haynes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached please find a letter in support of the settlement
reached in November.
Thank you.
Michelle R. Haynes
Tel. 407-539-2702
[email protected]
Michelle Haynes
400 N. Phelps Avenue
Winter Park
FL 32789
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you today to express my support of the Microsoft
anti-trust settlement that was reached back in early November, and I
am relieved to see this old dispute finally come to an end.
Microsoft has pledged to share more information with other companies
and give consumers more choices. Microsoft will design future
versions of Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft
software, and Microsoft cannot strike back against companies that
take advantage of that. If fact, the settlement stipulates that
licensing agreements for the top 20 hardware firms must be on equal
terms, except for volume discounts.
This settlement will not only make it easier to conduct business
for Microsoft competitors, but it will also allow this company to
move forward. This settlement will benefit all. Thank you for
settling with Microsoft, and I urge you to use your influence to
appeal to the states that have not yet settled as well, including
Florida.
Sincerely,
Michelle Haynes
CC: Representative Ric Keller
MTC-00010503
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT CASE
WHY ARE YOU WASTING OUR MONEY . . . COULD BE USED FOR OTHER
THINGS MORE IMPORTANT . . . JUST A BIG WASTE AND YOU WONDER WHY
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT? WHY DON'T YOU LET THE
PEOPLE DECIDE . . . NOT A BUNCH OF LAWYERS WHO STANDS TO MAKE A LOT
OF MONEY
RUFUS RICHEY
MTC-00010504
From: Darek Czechowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft
Microsoft is great Company. All we should be proud that
Microsoft was created and exist in America. All people in the world
wants one operation system--Windows. I used for so many years Lotus,
Paradox, I switch to Microsoft because these products are better
that competitors products.
Regards,
Darek
MTC-00010505
From: Kenneth Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT--NO MORE PROSECUTING
Stop spending money on the PROSECUTION of MICROSOFT. They are in
the marketplace and they deserve to reap the benefits of their
labors....
Thanks,
Kenneth E. Owen
6705 Jameson Road
Amarillo, Tx 79106
MTC-00010506
From: vwlee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:32pm
Subject: Viewpoint on Microsoft AntiTrust Case
I think the negotiated settlement is fair and the litigation
should not be dragged on to benefit a few influential competitors.
This antitrust case has taught Microsoft a lesson and Microsoft's
conduct will be different. It's in public interest to not waste tax
dollars on cases that do not benefit the public. A case in point--
the class action suit against Microsoft took a wrong turn and denied
underprivileged children from getting billion dollars worth of free
computers and only to benefit a few powerful lawyers.
A concerned citizen,
Ven Lee
10728 Riviera Pl N.E.
Seattle, WA 98125
MTC-00010507
From: Hal Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:44pm
Subject: The Microsoft and Enron Deal
It seems that both Microsoft and Enron, because of their might,
done whatever they wished to do to the general public and other
sectors. I am glad the ruling today was against the Microsoft giant.
Yes! The preliminary suggestion of providing software to school
would erode Apple Co. longstanding help to school and their share of
the computer dollar. Thank God for this ruling today.
Hal Schmidt
MTC-00010508
From: Steve Bodis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached is a letter concerning my support of the settlement
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
3987 S 900 E
Apt. 123
Salt Lake City, UT 84124-1175
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Microsoft and the Department of Justice have finally reached a
settlement to the antitrust case brought against Microsoft several
years ago. This was reached after a long, litigious battle, costing
both sides enormous amounts of money and time. I support this
agreement. Microsoft has agreed to a wish list drawn up by its
competitors, basically: Free intellectual property in the Windows
internal interfaces, nondiscriminatory licensing, no retaliation for
using non-Microsoft software within Windows, and a committee to ride
herd on Microsoft's living up to the agreement.
This country has been through some very difficult times, but we
have rebounded and with the new year, I think everyone is ready to
move on. Settling this antitrust case is one way to move on,
allowing us to concentrate on more important things such as the
economy. And regardless of what you may think of Microsoft, the
company is the engine that propels this economy. When Microsoft was
served with the antitrust lawsuit, the NASDAQ plummeted. The economy
has yet to recover. Microsoft, from what I know of the settlement,
has more than acceded to the demands of the Department of Justice.
Any
[[Page 25309]]
further litigation would be very damaging. I personally think
competitors of Microsoft held too much sway over the indictment
against the company and I would hate to think these same people
would impede us from moving forward and putting this case to rest.
I support this settlement. I ask that you do also.
Sincerely,
Istvan Zoltan Bodis
MTC-00010509
From: FRANKLIN D MATSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:50pm
Subject: Get Tough on Evil Microsoft
USA.Today has a link saying a person could sent their thought on
the Microsoft case to the DOJ. I personally think that this big
business evil company is just getting it hands spanked. They have
been found guilty and should be punished accordingly. The government
spent millions of dollars on the case and thus should extract
billions and lots of them from Microsoft including extracting lots
of money from the management at MS.
MTC-00010510
From: Gerard Terpening
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
21161 Greenboro Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7020
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to you today to state my support of the recent
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice
in regards to the antitrust dispute. Microsoft is a leader in the
technology industry. Over the past decade, Microsoft has
consistently provided consumers with innovative, user-friendly
products. Their success in the technology industry is proof of their
excellence in the field.
While I do not agree with the litigation to begin with, I am
pleased that the issue is finally resolved. After three years of
litigation, the technology industry is definitely worse off, not to
mention the taxpayer! It is time for the government to put the issue
at bay and focus on rebuilding the economy.
Microsoft competitors have received much under this settlement.
There should be no room for complaints on their part. It is time to
focus on the needs of our American economy.
Sincerely,
Gerard Terpening
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010511
From: Tori Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:05pm
Subject: my opinion
I have been using computer (s) since 1980. I need them because I
am a CPA, but also wish I had more time to ``play, explore.'' Bill
Gates has done incredibly wonderful things for computer technology.
HOWEVER, I think his success has gone to his head, and somehow he
thinks he ought to control the market.
Just one example....I have always liked WordPerfect because of
it's ``reveal codes'' feature. But, every version through #8 has
caused me nothing but problems. I finally reached the point where I
was simply wasting my time with it. If you can't beat them join
them. So, I went with MS Word and its accompanying Excel. Neither of
these programs measure up to what Corel (or whoever owns them now.)
Furthermore, I have to have the entire ``Office'' package which I
have absolutely no need for. I spent over $200 over a year ago to
buy ``Word'' and ``Excel.'' Then I learn that there are no bug
fixes, updates, etc for these programs alone. I had to have the
entire ``Office'' package itself. I resent Microsoft's power and
control over such situations.
It's not that my computer system is inadequate (far from it). I
do not like being forced to have programs which I neither need, nor
want. They muddy up the registry, mess with my ``start'' menu . .
.in general take up space, including memory, which I want to use the
way I want to use it. I believe that is my right. It's one thing to
have ``Windows,'' but that's as far as it should go as far as I am
concerned.
I have recently upgraded my 2 computer systems. One has ``XP''
on it (which I love)....but I have downloaded Sun Microsystems
spreadsheet and wordprocessor which is getting glowing reviews. On
my other system I have ``Windows 98 SE,'' and use Lotus
``SmartSuite.'' I like it, far and above ``Office.''
I don't know how to curtail Mr. Gates. To give him license to
donate computers to as many schools as he wants to is a tax gimmick
designed to make you and everyone else happy. I raised 5 children,
none of whom had computers in school. They learned just fine. At the
Jr. High level I can see where they can be of great use, and provide
more learning opportunities. But nothing beats a good teacher who is
well versed in his/her subject.
I firmly believe that Mr. Gates should be FORCED (under
knowledgeable government supervision) to provide his source codes
for all his operating systems. How else can other companies write
competitive programs which can run under these operating systems.
Microsoft is not the only company which has excellent programmers,
and other companies can offer different products.
Don't let this guy get away with what he has done, and probably
still doing, because he can afford such a team of lawyers. You need
good advice from people who know computers and programming. Please
listen to him. Gates has no right to ``buy'' his way out of his
monopolies, etc.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Very sincerely,
Victoria Heath
[email protected]
336-454-3121
MTC-00010512
From: John Lancaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:13pm
Subject: opinion
I think Bill Gates and Microsoft are arrogant, interested only
in themselves and to hell with the public. I hope you do what is
proper in this case--Break up the monopoly.
MTC-00010513
From: John Yunker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I must protest the terms of the Microsoft Settlement. The
current wording of the settlement codifies the right of Microsoft to
control access to information by private individuals. The settlement
must be changed to specifically grant the right to interface with
the microsoft platform to authorize, get, and put information.
Certain specifications, such as the root file system, cannot be
subject to license because this would restrict access to a basic
public infrastructure. The information infrastructure is just as
important to society as the energy, water, and communications
infrastructure.
The standards for hooking together basic public infrastructure
MUST be available to society at large for the effective evolution of
our society. No one can dispute that access to information is a
basic part of modern public infrastructure. The ability to build an
interface to my information store is a basic public right.
As long as they have an effective monopoly on private
information platform (non-commercial) they cannot use that position
to exclude any class of society from being able to build components
of the information infrastructure, e.g. they must make key interface
specifications public and not subject to license. They can make
specific technology used in providing a service subject to license,
but not the service itself, nor the specification of interfaces to
those services.
Thank you,
John Yunker
1901 45th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116
(206) 935-6251
[email protected]
MTC-00010514
From: John Luongo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
The Court has established that Microsoft has a monopoly
position. As such, its conduct is to be scrutinized to protect
consumers. In the light of Microsoft's past behavior, we can expect
minimal cooperation from Microsoft at best, and more likely,
continued abuse. Microsoft's lack of candor at the trial was
offensive, and I believe that it bodes poorly for their future
conduct. As consumers, we need a remedy that is much stronger than
that which was reached in the recent settlement. One needs to look
no further than Intel and AMD to see the effects of competition in
the personal computer marketplace. The battle for consumers between
these two competitors has two
[[Page 25310]]
obvious benefits. First, lower prices. And second, more innovation.
Business and personal consumers need the same type of
competition in software. I would like to choose to purchase my
operating system from another vendor without having to switch to
Linux or Apple. And I would like to have a greater choice of office
productivity software as well. Microsoft can market software that is
bloated with features that I don't want or need, and it can force me
to upgrade my licenses for Windows or Office when they decide it is
no longer profitable for them to support. For example, if I decide
to keep upgrading my computer indefinitely, at some point they can
refuse to ``activate'' my software licenses. In effect, this forces
me into a subscription mode. If I choose to use Office XP
Professional ten years from now, I should not need Microsoft's
``permission.''
Microsoft's tactics bully both consumers, and other entrants to
the marketplace. I wish market forces could remedy this imbalance.
Because this is unlikely, we need a settlement or judgment that will
protect end users from Microsoft's greed. We need your help.
While it may seem extreme, I believe that Microsoft should be
forced to license the code for Windows and for office productivity
software to competitors who are willing to pay an equitable fee.
This will compensate Microsoft for their intellectual property,
while allowing competitors to market products that appeal to
segmented markets. One size does not fit all in the computer
software marketplace.
There is a great irony in all this. Microsoft is an enormously
talented competitor who, in the long term, would benefit more from
healthy competition that from its present dominance.
MTC-00010516
From: J Oyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:33pm
Subject: the case
Since when does the government have any right to say what the
value of a product is. Overcharge the public? The public has gotten
a good deal. maybe we forget where we were just a few short years
ago. Computers were a mess to operate. They could not even talk to
another computer, until Microsoft came along. GOVERNMENT: leave us
alone.
MTC-00010517
From: Art Mayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:31pm
Subject: Power
Microsoft has used its financial, legal and monopoly power for
too long, and in too many ways, to allow it to continue to destroy
competition and stifle better products.
Anyone with more than a rudimentary knowledge of computers, and
who has been involved with computers for a long period of time,
knows the following: Microsoft's total addiction to ``the bottom
line'' has turned them into a company that determines a time when it
wants to release a new product, with unlimited advertising and
promotion, and them releases the product at that time without regard
to the product's readiness or quality. The term, ``sloppy
programming'' is used by the Microsoft programmers themselves to
identify this problem.
And, secondly, the fact that Microsoft tries to undermine,
purchase and destroy, or simply destroy, companies producing better
product has led to the sad situation of today, in which other, and
(real or potentially) better operating systems and applications are
held back and eliminated. This country, or the world, would not let
one pharmaceutical, medical, oil or energy entity control the sales,
supply and use to the world, of necessary products or knowledge.
Today, information and the internet is becoming as important as
medicine and energy. It needs to be controlled for the good of the
world, not one, selfish organization.
Art Mayer,
Bellevue, WA
MTC-00010518
From: Robert Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
By way of introduction, I'm a retired engineer and, although I
have owned numerous personal computers over the last twenty years, I
still consider myself just an average computer user. I hope you'll
forgive my fervor in the matter of litigation against Microsoft, but
like the VAST MAJORITY of computer owners, I (as well as the stock
market) was appalled at the Department of Justice attack on
Microsoft. Actually, the innovation and COMPATIBILITY of Microsoft's
products have greatly improved life for the average computer owner.
In addition, Microsoft is a most respected company, who has played a
MAJOR roll in making the United States the world's undisputed
technology leader (so seldom has it been that our US companies have
not played second fiddle to the Japanese).
Under the guise of somehow protecting computer users, the DOJ
forged ahead with this legal action as though they somehow knew more
about what we wanted than we did ourselves (which, I feel, smacks a
bit of ``Big Brother-ism''). In part, I feel that the DOJ was overly
swayed by the rantings of Microsoft's competitors (like Sun
Microsystems) who had a vested interest in crippling the company. If
one really wanted to do what is right for the computer market, they
would get off Microsoft's back and let them continue giving us more
innovative and reasonably priced products. Judge Penfield Jackson
has, of course, been revealed for what he actually was and the
Department of Justice concluded the case with logical remedial
actions. However, some nine states seem to have rationalized that
the DOJ, along with the other 40 states (and most assuredly, we
consumers) are all wrong and that they have a sacred obligation to
set it all straight . Anytime something is held up to the scrutiny
of a blood letting such as this has been, there are always some who
will never let go (not unlike vultures who have been waiting in the
wings to glean whatever benefits that might be realized from a
lynching). Pardon the comparison, but we consumers view their action
as classic ambulance chasing.
And, just when is enough, enough. Has anyone ever stopped to
consider what this three year long ordeal, against one of the
countries most admired companies, has already cost our country? I
realize that this action by the dissenting states isn't costing them
anything (I believe that Microsoft has to pick up their legal
bills). It makes me wonder if they would be as compelled to carry on
their ``crusade'' if it were on their nickel. I really hope that I'm
wrong, but I get the strange feeling that somewhere in this pursuit,
these nine states will actually be seeking a monetary settlements
for their state's coffers.
Please don't take offence at these concerns. They are truly
meant as constructive suggestions.
Bob Williams
[email protected]
828-926-9593
MTC-00010519
From: John L. Varner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Varner
7503 E County Road 625 N
Grandview, IN 47615-9558
Ph. (812) 362-8045
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
At age 73, and a long-time admirer of Microsoft, I write you
with concern over the recent settlement between the Department of
Justice and Microsoft. Not only was this negotiation process
rational and fair, but also it was well monitored and in the
interest of all parties involved. This is why it is ridiculous for
it to go under any further scrutiny. After three frustrating years
of court battles, it is time to move forward.
The greed of professional lawyers and the states objecting to
this settlement has become ludicrous.
My experience is limited but I have owned 3 computers and taken
about 6 computer courses from Ivy Tech. Microsoft is certainly the
leader in development and innovation of records for business.
WHERE would industry and our economy be today with the without
the technology that for the most part has been pioneered and
developed by Microsoft?
The terms that Microsoft and the D.O.J. have agreed upon are
productive, detailed and in the interest of the entire IT sector.
Microsoft has agreed to design versions of Windows that will allow
easier installation of non-Microsoft software. Along with this, they
are willing to be monitored by a committee that will make sure that
they follow procedure. The IT sector is ready to move forward and
get back to business. Can't we help support our technology industry,
and stop any further litigation against this settlement?
Let us allow our software companies to work together in order to
maintain our place in the global market.
Please help to support the agreement as it is, and let the terms
speak for themselves.
[[Page 25311]]
Please don't shackle and penalize Microsoft further because of it's
initiative and hard work to become the leader. The world desperately
needs Microsoft's expertise.
Sincerely,
John Varner
MTC-00010521
From: Charles Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12112 Olive Trail
Plymouth, IN 46563-9385
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion that litigation against
Microsoft should have never occurred in the first place. Our
government has dragged this thing out long enough while it should be
focusing on far more important issues.
One of the first items of the settlement I would like to address
has to do with contractual restrictions. Under terms of the
settlement, Microsoft has agreed to not enter into any third party
agreements, which require distributors to exclusively deliver their
items, or at a fixed percentage. This is how most companies maintain
market share such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola. I believe this concession
is detrimental to Microsoft and inhibits their ability to compete in
a free market.
Secondly, in regards to the disclosure of interfaces that
Microsoft is being forced to do, I think that it is ludicrous.
Microsoft has been the leading innovator of technology and services
over the last decade. They should be rewarded for their innovation
and be allowed to keep their technological secrets that have
propelled them to where they are today.
The best interests of the American public will be served when
the nine states drop their lawsuits. The government must stop
interfering with private enterprise.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Jones
MTC-00010522
From: Alex Amies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to comment on the proposed United States v. Microsoft
Settlement.
I do not believe that the settlment is strong enough to create a
level playing field between Microsoft and it's competitors. In
particular, it will have the following impact on me as a computer
programmer: (1) Force me to invest my time learning proprietary
Microsoft technologies rather than industry standards.
Microsoft in many cases stubbornly refuses to follow open
industry standards and since they create the most commonly used
platforms everybody else has to learn to use Microsoft's own
versions of API's, protocols, and formats. Therefore, I get to spend
less time learning technologies that can be applied to other
operating systems. A monopoly company should be required to follow
open industry standards.
(2) Force me to use Windows as my desktop operating system when
I would prefer to use something else. I would prefer to use Linux
and that would be an option for me at work if the Netscape mail
client on Linux (which follows the IMAP and POP3 standards) is not
compatible with the Microsoft Exchange Mail server that my company
operates for its staff. I am very dependent on email communication
and, in fact, cannot work without it. A monopoly company should be
required to produce network software that is compatible with
products from other vendors.
Alex Amies (US Citizen)
192 Woodbury
Irvine, CA 92620
949/255 3302
MTC-00010523
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an independent software engineer, I hope you reign in
Microsoft and curtail its evil practices. Any company who has a
monopoly on the OS should not be able to sell applications for that
OS. Any programmer just knows this is right.
Thanks,
Tom Gordon
Stratosoft Inc.
MTC-00010524
From: Daniel A. Myerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:11pm
Subject: Settlement
The attack by the justice department was unjust. How could any
settlement be called unjust in those circumtances?
Dan Myerson
MTC-00010525
From: Tee Freddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box 503
Clinton, Louisiana 70722
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the settlement reached between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice. Although I believe that antitrust litigation
in this case was unwarranted, Microsoft should be able to move on
with its business under the terms stipulated in the settlement.
Microsoft has made concessions like increased information sharing
and non-retaliation clauses in the settlement.
Microsoft has done worlds of good for the technology industry.
In the past decade, Microsoft has provided consumers with high-
quality, user-friendly software. Their products are the frameworks
for the technology industry. As such, this antitrust dispute has
served only to curb the productivity previously seen in the IT
industry. Hence, this settlement is in the best interests of the
state and the economy.
At this time of recession, it is critical that Microsoft be
allowed to concentrate on business now.
Sincerely,
Fred Alsup
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010526
From: John Edge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:16pm
Subject: microsoft
I am an Australian and it worried me that Microsoft seem to be
dictating the law rather than being judged.
It really does give the impression that big money is exempt from
penalties.
John Edge
Australia
MTC-00010527
From: Karen Mazza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern at the Justice Department:
Enough already with trying to punish Microsoft. As a consumer, I
am happy with their products, and think they do a better job than
anyone else. All this trial did was waste taxpayer money, and punish
investors. It is time for the government to get out of trying to
regulate industries, and let the market do its own work. The market
is far better at regulating competition than lawyers and
bureaucrats!!! Let the market and consumers decide which products
are the best!! Untie corporations' hands and let them do their work
of producing superior products WITHOUT government interference! In
this economy, we need to let our companies produce new and
innovative products and technologies to help create new jobs. It is
time to end Clinton's era of anti-trust law abuse. The settlement is
enough. Stop now.
Sincerely,
Karen Mazza
MTC-00010528
From: Robert Dollins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft deserves harsh judgement
Having been an often unwilling customer of Microsoft's since
it's early days of being only a computer languages supplier, I can
attest to negative effects of their predatory and unfair practices
toward both customers and competitors. Many new startups and
innovative companies now lie in the dustbin of computing history
because of Microsoft's practices, very often to the detriment of the
consumer.
In my opinion, there is no judgement too harsh to place and
enforce against Microsoft to minimize the practices in which they
have habitually engaged. The arrogance of Bill Gates and the entire
corporate structure of Microsoft deserves the most rigid of
punishment and restriction from competiting unfairly. The consumer
and innovative new products and capabilities will benefit.
Robert Dollins
[[Page 25312]]
MTC-00010529
From: Aglialoro, John
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02 10:51pm
Subject: The U.S. Government and Microsoft Corporation
The stunning achievement of Microsoft as a noble enterprise is
its great gift to the general public.....the access to useful and
inexpensive information. This voluntary transaction by a willing
consumer exchanging a pittance of cost for the value received should
result in a chorus of support by U. S. officials. The high profits
EARNED by Microsoft which produce huge government income and high
employment that creates more productivity and further government tax
income by those gainfully employed should guarantee unwavering
support for the existence, growth, and continuance of Microsoft as a
standard of awe and respect.
And yet, unconscionably, competitors of less sterner stuff in
alliance with pale political will and bureaucratic force,
characterize an angel of deliverance as its
opposite................FOR SHAME !! There must be agents of reason
within the corridors of government who could reverse the nonsense
and give due reverence to the man and his company and therefore give
reverence to the sacred philosophy our blessed nation was founded
upon.
John Aglialoro, CEO
Cybex International
[email protected]
MTC-00010530
From: David A. Cobb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlefolk:
I am a professional software developer of over thirty years
experience. Thus I have watched, and been affected by, many of the
changes in the business of information technology during a period
when it has changed dramatically. The desktop platform has not,
until recently, been a major focus of my work; however, I have been
a user of desktop systems for about twelve years and have used a
considerable variety of both Microsoft and competing products.
Microsoft is certainly capable of producing good software. So
are many others. However, Microsoft does not consistantly do so,
because, in my opinion, they don't need to be good to win. This is a
most deplorable situation for both business users and developers. So
long as one company remains ``the only game in town,'' American
software products will be somewhat less than they could become.
I have watched from the sidelines as one competitor after
another has been crushed. Sometimes, to be sure, it was because they
could not produce a product as good as or better than a Microsoft
product. But often it was for other reasons having little to do with
the technical merits of the products.
Microsoft can easily afford to give away software, as they have
done with their Internet Explorer. Likewise, their ``deals'' with
OEM system builders lets them put their products in the hands of
users at a perceived price no competitor can match. Even without the
economic muscle provided by Microsoft's wealth and monopoly power,
the production of software invites this sort of marketing--however
high the cost of initially developing a product, the cost of
reproducing it is practically nothing.
I have read the Proposed Final Judgement with bemused dismay. I
am no lawer and don't pretend to understand all of it. But it seems
clear that this is barely a ``slap on the wrist.'' Microsoft is
hardly constrained from continuing its version of ``business as
usual.'' This seems extraordinary in the face of a strong judgement
that they have indeed routinely engaged in unlawful business
practices.
My memory reaches back over many years of this business to a
time when IBM was the ``2000 pound gorilla,'' and was constrained in
several ways by one or another consent decree. A part of the means
used then seems very appropriate now: *I recommend that the PFJ be
ammended to require the complete unbundling of operating system
software from (hardware) systems.*
Specifically, let the OEM builders construct their systems and
then offer the consumer a choice of software *at retail prices* to
be installed. This will immediately eliminate the consumer's
illusion that the pre-installed Windows software, with all it's
newly bundled add ons, is free. Let the consumer see that, for
example, the hardware costs $700, the Windows OS costs $200 or a
Linux OS costs $50; the Internet Explorer browser is included in the
OS, Netscape for Linux costs $25, etc. I realize that the OEM's are
not a party to the judgement; the terms would need to be something
like: ``Microsoft shall cause all software to be marked with the
price at which it is to be sold, whether at retail or pre-installed,
and shall not contract with any OEM or system integrator to imply
that the pre-installed software is being provided free or at
negligible cost.'' Further, Microsoft should be constrained to offer
its software to any OEM or system integrator at a cost determined
only by the volume of sales--with no covenants concerning what
software packages the OEM may elect to market with his systems.
This is the best opportunity the US will have for many years to
come, to restore a measure of competitiveness in an industry that is
becoming rapidly less competitive by the month. Please do not throw
it away.
Sincerely yours,
David A. Cobb, Software Engineer
7 Lenox Ave
West Warwick, RI 02893-3918
MTC-00010531
From: Andrew Clerkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 10:54pm
Subject: Time to end anti-trust case
I believe that it is time to end the anti-trust case against
Microsoft. The government has wasted way too much time and money on
this case. I'm a consumer and I don't think Microsoft has hurt me.
If people don't want their products they don't have to buy them.
There are alternatives available. This case was pushed down our
throats by competitors who want a short cut to the top. Rather than
compete with Microsoft they figured it would be easier to get the
DOJ to go after them. Even the experts in the field have no idea how
computer technology will evolve. I think it is absolutely ludicrous
to think that government bureaucrats would be able to figure out how
technology will evolve and how the government should control it. Let
the free market run it's course. The DOJ totally screwed up the
telephone system in this country. Prior to the break up of AT&T we
had a regulated monopoly that worked great. Now we have an
unregulated monopoly and the whole system is screwed up thanks to
the DOJ. The point is that ``it ain't broke, so don't try to fix
it''.
Sincerely,
Andrew Clerkin
MTC-00010532
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1430 Aerial Way SE
Salem, OR 97302-1606
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
After three years of unnecessary legal battles, I was pleased to
hear that a settlement between the federal government and Microsoft
has been reached. Considering the terms of the agreement, Microsoft
did not get off easily. In fact, Microsoft has to make several
significant changes to the way that they handle their business. For
example, Microsoft has agreed to make available to its competitors,
any protocols implemented in Windows' operating system products that
are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft server
operating system.
With the many terms of the agreement, I see no reason to pursue
further litigation on any level.
Sincerely,
Anna McNeil
MTC-00010533
From: Schulman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After the United States Government pursued breaking up the phone
company at great cost to the taxpayer, the ultimate result was
higher costs for service, poorer quality service, nuisance
competitive advertising and illegal switching of services, and the
little Bells are starting to merge together to improve service,
reduce cost and get a better handle on management.
Regarding the Microsoft Settlement, all I see is that the United
States Government is demonstrating again that it did not learn from
historical reference. Ultimately, the consumer will not benefit, the
taxpayer will have footed an enormous cost, and Microsoft will end
up the winner anyhow. It's a lose/lose game and the Government is
making the rules to make sure that the real loser is still the
consumer.
I think the United States Government cannot run private business
as well as private
[[Page 25313]]
business can. As it is, there are too many incompetent
administrators with guaranteed job security and high salaries in the
government that would have been fired in the private sector for
excessive waste of profits and poor business handling.
I would grade the Government's efforts in this matter a C
minus--and that is being generous.
After all, the private sector cannot provide a military with
such waste and lost records as has been shown time and time again
and still manage to protect our country with other people's money as
our Government can.
DENNIS SCHULMAN
9591 128TH TERRACE N
LARGO FL 33773
MTC-00010534
From: Ishmel Taylor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ishmel Taylor
11059 Continental
Warren, MI 48089-1734
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ishmel Taylor
MTC-00010535
From: Edna Earle Crews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:04pm
Subject: End The Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
Dear Sirs:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending acompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Take action soon.
Sincerely,
Edna Earle and Raiford Crews
2087 Crews Lane
Crystal Springs, MS 39059
MTC-00010536
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
GENTLEMEN:
BASED ON WHAT NEWS WE HAVE , I FEEL THAT THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE
IS BIASED AGAINST MICROSOFT AND SYMPATHETIC TO APPLE CO AND OTHER
COMPETITORS OF MICROSOFT.
I DO NOT SEE APPLE COMPUTOR DONATING ANY EQUIPMENT TO ANY
SCHOOLS OF NEEDY CHILDREN, BUT YET THEY CRITICIZE MICROSOFT AS BEING
UNFAIR OR WANTING AN ADVANTAGE TO PENETRATE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WITH
THEIR WARES. BECAUSE THE COMPETITORS ARE UNABE TO COMPETE WITH
MICROSOFT THEY TURN TO ENLIST THE COURTS FOR THEIR BENEFIT ON THE
BASIS THAT THEY HURT THE THE PUBLIC.
I AM GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THEIR PRODUCTS AND
WHAT MICROSOFT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO OUR ECONOMY IF THEIR DONATION WAS
INSUFFICIENT WHY DID NOT THE COURT JUST ASK FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.
THE COURTS SHOULD WAKE UP AND NOT BE SO DUPED BY THE STATES
ATTORNEY GENERALS WHO ARE STILL NOT SATISFIED AND THE COMPANIES WHO
COULD NOT DEFEAT THE ASTUTE MANAGEMENT.
THINK ABOUT ALL THE INVESTORS IRA'S AND PENSION PLANS THAT HAVE
BEEN DEVASTED THE COURTS EVEN SAW FIT TO REFUSE MICROSOFT ADDITIOAL
TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE CONTINUED CHARGES .
IT SEEMS THAT THIS LETS KEEP GANGING UP ON MICROSOFT BY THE
ENEMIES OF MICROSOFT IS GETTING TO BE STANDARD PROCEDURE BY THE
COURTS AND SOME BIASED STATES.
THE FINAL OUTCOME THEREFOR IS THAT THESE NEEDY CHILDREN WILL BE
DEPRIVED OF THIS BENEFICIAL EQUIPMENT. I HAVE NOOT SEEN ANY
CONTRIBUTION FROM APPLE AND
OTHER COMPETITOIRS JUDGE YOU HAVE HURT THESE CHILDREN ACALAPAI
MTC-00010539
From: Joan B. DeMarcus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I will be brief. The U.S. should adopt laissez-faire
capiltalism. Let Microsoft go.
Microsoft dominated the market because it was the most
productive and efficient company in its marketing field.
Productivity and efficiency are virtues. No person or company should
be punished for their virtues.
As for the U.S. antitrust laws, they are fraudulent and should
be repealed.
Joan B. DeMarcus
MTC-00010540
From: Anita
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with this action and think the government would be
better served if they would quit undermining the businesses that
keep this country running head and shoulders above all the others.
Thank you,
A.L. Farina
MTC-00010541
From: Chris Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02 11:40pm
Subject: Make an informed decision
I just spent 9 days trying to make a Microsoft Windows 2000
server work with a Unix SAMBA server. (SAMBA is an NT4 compatible
open source protocol so that windows users can access unix file
systems as if they were windows file systems.) If you research the
history of Samba and the nightmares they have had trying to figure
out how Microsoft uses the SMB protocol, you will quickly see the
efforts Microsoft goes through to break the Samba compatibility.
Each time a new version of windows comes out, it is just different
enough to cause problems for Samba/Unix administrators. As an
administrator, once you spend 9 days trying to find a problem (and
the problem is directly related to microsoft keeping the protocols
secret and changing the protocols) you curse Microsoft.
After cursing them, you realize why some companies only use
Microsoft --because MS has made it near impossible to use anything
else but them. The second thing to consider is the same tactics
related to MS Office. Each version uses a new format (which again is
secret). Not only does this make it near impossible to use Corel
Office, et al, it also forces customers to upgrade MS Office when a
new version comes out because the old version is not compatible with
the new version. Our company has to share files with other companies
and if we can't open their files, then we can't do business with
them. If they use MS Office, then we have to be able to support that
too. We have been trying to use Corel Office which is a fraction of
the cost, but the inability to keep up with Microsoft's file format
changes might force us to drop $50,000 into getting 200 users onto
MS Office.
Now, not only does MS force you to upgrade... most companies
prefer to upgrade their office applications every 4 years, but
Microsoft's new licensing policies will require companies to upgrade
every 2 years. Where are the choices for the users? Sure, you can
choose other options but you may not remain in business if you do
because of the external forces of MS as I listed above. Beware .Net,
the new Comcast/ATT cable deal, Xbox, ERP things they are planning,
etc,
[[Page 25314]]
and you have an ever more dangerous MS. Don't just think of
punishing their past, but controlling their current actions and
future actions. They are more of a threat right now than they ever
have been. The current DOJ proposal's are the equivalant of dropping
the case. A $1 billion dollar cash penalty plus restrictions still
may not stop them (do you realize how much cash they have in the
bank?) and the current proposal doesn't even get near this.
Chris
MTC-00010542
From: mitchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
email: [email protected]
Fax 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am a software developer and IT professional. I've been
following the Microsoft Antitrust case and recent developments with
the DOJ settlement. As a professional, I can testify that Microsoft
is a monopoly and its dominance affects average consumer who have to
pay a high price for a not so good product. To give you an example
of a monopoly, let me ask you if you have a TV set at home? When you
purchased your TV, did you go to a big store where a sales person
helped you to choose among dozens, if not hundreds, of different
models, didn't her/she? Even if you went to a small shop on the
corner, you probably looked at a few models anyway. When you brought
your TV home and hooked it up to your antenna or satellite dish, how
many channels can you watch? Probably more than one, at least. You
get your network channels, your cable channels, your public
television, and of course all these home shopping channels on all
kinds of airwaves spectrum. Now, please let me know what would it be
called, if you go to a store to buy a TV and all the brands and
models belong to the same manufacturer.
Well, you want to watch TV, so even if all the sets are made in
one place, based on one technology, rely on the same set of commands
and have the same menu for operations, you still would buy it,
because again, you really want to watch TV and you don't care about
the brand that much. Ok, you brought your TV home, you hooked it up
to whatever you have: antenna on the roof, your satellite dish, you
cable or all of the above. You are done working, it's time to have
fun. You grab you coke and pop-corn, get in your favorite chair,
grab the remote and push the Power button. Ta-da! You are watching
it and everything is great but suddenly you are starting to notice
that you can watch only certain channels. And the stingiest thing is
that you are watching only channels which are owned by the same
company which manufactured your TV. Even though there are a lot of
channels to choose from and they offer a seemingly great number of
topics and programming, they still all originated in the same place
where your TV set was made. Your friend tells you about some other
channels which you can't get on your TV.
You have to go through enormous pain to get those ``other''
channels on your TV: you have to call that nerdy guy from work and
have him do some magic work on your TV, downloading and installing
different special systems to allow compatibility of your TV with
``other'' channels. Ok, you spent enough time and effort to get your
TV fully compatible with all channels and programs. Few months
(weeks, days, minutes) later, you get news from the company which
manufactured your TV that your set is very insecure, full of hidden
problems, dangerous to operate if you don't know what you are doing
and all your neighbors can see what's going on in your living room
through your new TV set's screen. You are panicking, you are calling
tech support, the nerdy guy from work and other experts in TV so
that they protect your privacy and your living room. Again, almost
all the problems seem to be solved, but you are a little bit jumpy
and you don't look at your new TV the same way as only a short time
ago. There are still some problems with your TV. Did I mention that
you can't buy VCR, DVD player, stereo or any other system to connect
to your TV, unless it's also manufactured by the same company that
made your TV set? And of course, VCR tapes and DVD discs that you
rent at your favorite rental store must only be made by... guess
who? You got it, your TV set manufacturer! But even this is not the
worst part. Soon you hear again from the manufacturer that all
remaining problems with your TV will be fixed in the new model which
you must buy to ensure that your viewing pleasure continues since
the company is changing format of all its TV, radio, video, etc.
programming and only the new model TV set will be able to receive
it. Devastated, you through away your ``old'' but still perfectly
good TV set (except that it's kind of useless now) and get in line
at your favorite big (or small) TV store to buy the new latest and
greatest TV set. And the story continues again and again in the same
manner.
So, do you think that this is a monopoly? I hope you do, and I
hope that you will pass this message around to other people in DOJ.
Please let me know if you have any question or if I can be of any
help to you and your colleagues in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alexander Mitchen
IT developer
MTC-00010543
From: Cristea, Eugen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/12/02 12:19am
Subject: monopol == no good
Dear Judge,
I believe there are thousands of e-mails regarding this case.I
will try all my best to be short and sharp. In 1999 i have to buy a
new computer because my old one was very slow.Usual, computer prices
are droping every few months.At that time the situation was
different and special the cost for the memory was up.Why?There was a
big earthquake in Taiwan and Taiwan is a main memory producer. In a
few months everything was back to normal but i believe you
understand my point.In this case it was a natural disaster, but it
could be anything.Your car has two separate brake circuits in case
one of them fails.What if Microsoft will get bought by a sick mind
like those responsible for the 11-th september.There are many ways
things could go wrong in this situation.It's risky to put your money
in just one place.
Anyway, life will go on with or without Microsoft.Roman Empire
was powerfull and invincible for a long time but it disapear in the
final.
just a small dot in this world,
eugen
MTC-00010544
From: Ishtiyaq Bhatti
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/12/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am an educated housewife and mother, having a master's degree
in education. I've opted to stay at home since I have a 22 month old
baby.
I came to know through a friend some of the aspects of the
Proposed Settlement made by the Justice Department with Microsoft,
and I am displeased by them. Firstly, how could the Justice
Department grant Microsoft a government-mandated monopoly of the
software industry and even worse-- other technology markets?
Definitely such decision would seriously jeopardize all serious
competitors - both now and in the future. We're living in a free and
capitalistic society, and one of the advantages of it is that people
have the right to choose from among several brands of one single
item, and in this case, software. I would want to see a healthy
competition of several software companies, in order to make prices
competitive as well. Secondly, how could the Justice Department
condone Microsoft for violating the antitrust law and even for its
illegal conduct e.g. bribing other competitors in order to stop
their operation. What is the Justice Department's motive behind this
action?
Your Honor, I would want Microsoft be brought to justice for the
good of this present as well as the future generation.
Respectfully,
Meldy Bhatti
P.O. Box 184
Rantoul, IL 61866
MTC-00010545
From: Lucio DiGiovanni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 12:30am
Microsoft has Not been dealt a fair deal
A fair deal would have been to be split Microsoft up so that
Apple could have had a chance to sell a more consumer friendly
product for the past 5 years instead of being squashed to 5% market
share.
MTC-00010546
From: Kay Schenk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 12:31am
Subject: Micsrosoft Settlement
[[Page 25315]]
Kay Schenk, MizK
``The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to
deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.'' --
Abraham Lincoln
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the judges and
counsel involved in the Microsoft antitrust case, #98-1232, for
allowing public comment on your final decision. I'm sure by now you
have received many responses from interested citizens like myself.
I hold a master's degree in Computer Science which I obtained in
1976. I've worked continually with computers since that time. My
occupational setting has been primarily with academic institutions
where I have been involved in many different roles since 1976: as
computing support personnel, as a programmer, and in my current
title as Web Master for the two main web sites at California State
University, Chico. Needless to say, I have lived through more
changes in the computer industry than I can even remember at this
point.
I have attempted to follow this particular antitrust against
Microsoft for several reasons not the least is my current
involvement in Web development, where the ``browser'' software of
course is an integral component. However, what I find really
interesting is that it was this particular piece of software
apparently caused this complaint to be filed. (I don't really define
this as ``middleware'' since that term carries a very different
connotation to me.)
In my mind, many of Microsoft's business practices, this being
just one of many, have certainly been worthy of this type of
complaint. But I digress. I read with interest the ``Competitive
Impact Statement'' that was posted to the DOJ Web site around mid
November, 2001. What I found particularly interesting was this
statement: Appropriate injunctive relief in an antitrust case
should: (1) end the unlawful conduct; (2)``avoid a recurrence of the
violation''; and, (3) undo its anti-competitive consequences.
Additionally, you state that:
Restoring competition is the ``key to the whole question of
antitrust remedy''. You then go on in this same paragraph (section
IV.B. of the ``Competitive Impact Statement'') to describe how
Microsoft's illegal conduct maintained the application barrier to
entry in the personal computer operating systems market by its
practice with the particular middleware product, its Internet
Explorer browser.
Unfortunately, in my mind anyway, this is only one very small
instance of the type of practices carried out by Microsoft for years
to thwart any and all development not only in the PC operating
systems market but the PC applications market as well. And, I don't
feel your proposed Final Judgment will fulfill the any of the goals
of ``injunctive relief'' at all in the long run. Much more has gone
on in the computer industry since this complaint was filed in 1998,
and I can tell you with absolutely certainty, that many more
anticompetitive moves and harmful monopolistic practices have been
carried out by Microsoft in these last five years. Some, even, have
severely compromised the entire Internet. The initial complaint
contains 129 paragraphs of description. They seem to provide a good
overview of Microsoft's former practices with OEMs with respect to
the installation of the Windows operating system and severe
restrictions placed on these OEMs concerning the installation of
other, many better, non-Microsoft products. Frankly, I don't see the
current case so much as directly realting to the browser product, as
the incredible amount of market share Microsoft amassed from say
1990-1998 because of these practices and others.
Because Microsoft controls the PC operating systems market, it
found a way to convince your office for one, that certain features
it ``incorporated'' into more recent versions of its operating
system, Windows 95, for example, were really part and parcel of the
OS, and not just unnecessary elements it decided to include to
increase its share in other markets. Incorporating Internet Explorer
directly into Windows 95, and not easily removed, was just one such
tactic. At about the same time, Microsoft made significant strides,
fully aware of the Internet's expansion about that time, to include
``monitoring'' pieces, if you will, into the Windows 95 operating
system to basically track users without their knowledge. Many of
these ``features'' were well publicized on the Internet when
discovered and ways were found to disable them much to Microsoft's
chagrin, I dare say. I'm sure you must be aware of a letter to
President Clinton by Ralph Nader on July 26, 1995 concerning some of
this.
In reality, something like browser ``middleware'' is not even
remotely required by an operating system, whose only function really
is to provide a means to address the memory available and devices
attached to your machine, and load some modicum of software
processing power into memory to enable you to program your computer.
Anything else on top of this primary function, I classify as
``utilities'' or ``user interfaces'' or ``software applications''.
Browsers, as an entity, do not really pose any threats from a
competitive standpoint to operating systems in my mind. If this is
Microsoft's excuse for their conduct, I stand dumbfounded.
The Final Judgment certainly is a step forward in curtailing
Microsoft's current unethical practices, but it certainly does not
mitigate, in any way, prior grievances not does it prevent the kind
of development practices that have basically enabled Microsoft to
totally dominate the PC OS market to begin with.
The biggest positive of this Judgment in my opinion is the
requirement that Microsoft provide its Apis and Communications
Protocol specifications to developers and and OEMS (sections III.D.
and III.E.) Although this requirement does not ``open up'' what
Microsoft considers its operating system, it will at least hopefully
provide the development community at large much needed information
on how others can provide comparable ``middleware'' products.
However, even this requirement comes with a loophole that the
Justice department will no doubt find difficult to challenge if one
were to believe Microsoft. Section III.J.1. states that Microsoft is
not obligated to provide APIA information which it feels ``would
compromise the security of a particular installation or group of
installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing ....
``I would guess given our current Internet computing environment,
that Microsoft might claim that major portions of its Windows OS
might fall into this umbrella definition. The upshot of such a
loophole will be that Microsoft will continue to capitalize on its
monopoly power and reveal very little that will directly benefit
additional developers. Microsoft has attained much of its OS
monopoly power by developing its own applications, which just
coincidentally work best with its own OS. This is no accident. It is
absolutely because Microsoft has refused to disclose certain details
of the Windows internals to the development community at large.
The appointment of a Technical Committee (detailed in Section
IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures) seems to be a great
requirement at first look. However, I question the politeness of
allowing Microsoft to be involved at all in choosing these
individuals. This is nonsense.
I also highly object to the restrictions placed on the TC
members in terms of public access and accountability to the public.
This antitrust suit presumably serves the public interest! And only
that. The only communication from the public at large that I can
decipher from the Judgment is item IV.B.8.d.:
``The ETC shall complaints from the Compliance Officer, third
parties, or the Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner specified
in section IV.D. below''. I guess I would have to ask: what third
parties? Who do I complain to as a private citizen? My state
attorney general? Additionally, nowhere in this Judgment is there a
mechanism for even informing the public who these TC members are.
This is the Internet age. Given th enormous public exposure of this
case with nearly all pertaining information posted to the DOJ Web
site that this rather critical follow-up is completely shrouded in
privacy.
In this regard, I find items IV.B.9 and IV.B.10 especially of
concern. I don't think Microsoft should have the opportunity to
govern how the implementation of this part of the Judgment is
implemented. And this is what seems to be taking place in the
description of these two points. Additionally, I find the payment of
the TC by Microsoft troublesome without further details. Why
wouldn't an escrow account to which Microsoft contributes a fixed
annual amount simply be established based on cost estimates? It
seems incredibly unwise for Microsoft to be directly in charge of
paying the TC. Again, it is difficult to determine actual
implementation details based on what you've published.
These are specific issues I have with the Final Judgment as it
is currently written. However, like many, I feel this Judgment is
woefully inadequate in addressing the ``larger'' issues of
Microsoft's business practices, which are integrally tied to its
monopolistic position. Microsoft's unethical business practices are
a direct result of its monopoly power and the desire to ensure that
the proprietary APIs on which much of
[[Page 25316]]
the Windows environment has been built would be used as definitive
``standards'' in nearly every aspect of computing--from the desktop
to the Internet. To this end, Microsoft has attempted to thwart
nearly every aspect of ``open standards'' that have existed for
years. As early as 1995, Microsoft seemed to head a coalition of
other vendors in opposing the ``interoperability'' specifications of
HR 1555, the communications bill which provided, in part, the V-chip
mechanism.
More recently, in its OS distributions, Microsoft has badly
implemented the core protocol used by the Internet, t??p/ip, thereby
setting up a scenario leading to denial of service attacks on
Windows/NT systems, one of which belonged to the U.S. Navy. While
this might be attributed to innocent error, many of the Internet
community believe such lack of quality testing is solely attributed
to Microsoft's monopoly power and a basic ``we don't have to care''
attitude. Microsoft's security problems are so well-known they are
documented in literally thousands of sites on the Internet. This
scenario wouldn't be quite so fearsome if Microsoft only sold
products to businesses who, hopefully, would have the technical
expertise to deal with them. But this is not the case in our current
society where, according to a U.S. Census report in August, 2000,
42% of households had Internet access. Many of these consumers have
very little awareness, much less actual knowledge, of computer
security problems and what they could ultimately mean. More
sophisticated hacking techniques like distributed denial of service
attacks, coupled with total lack of prevention or precaution by
household computer users, spells enormous problems! Microsoft is not
only a key player in this problem, but, according to nearly every
reliable source dealing with computer security issues, THE key player. The
reason why is simple--they're a monopoly, they don't have to care.
Microsoft itself is now so concerned about its reputation in
this area that it has publicized that ``white hat'' hackers who
expose these problems only add to the problem. This is ludicrous! Is
it not the vendor's responsibility to fully test such products under
many adverse conditions to determine worthiness. Apparently not for
Microsoft, who, in its zeal to rush products to market, has not
taken the time, or can't be concerned enough to take the time! More
recently, according to a post to a well-know British web site on 12/
13/2001, Microsoft continues its highly debatable business practices
by essentially ``bribing'' security by offering them upwards of
approximately $30,000 worth of software for $1,450:
``All you have to do is keep silent about any Microsoft security
bugs you might discover, until Redmond authorizes you to speak.
Oh, and you have to employ at least two exclusive Microsoft
Certified Professionals, such as MCSEs.''
The story gets better but I'll spare you the details.
My point in all this is simple. Microsoft has employed unethical
business practices from its inception. It continues these practices
even I write this. This Final Judgment will not stop those
practices. There are too many loopholes and the implementation,
however well-intentioned, is fraught with problems. Microsoft is a
monopoly and as such operates the way most monopolies do with little
concern for quality, customer satisfaction, or long-term innovation.
They exist to conquer competition in any way possible including
but not limited to marketing products of exceptionally poor quality
with the expectation that the consumer will just buy into it because
it's the only game in town.
The main function of any antitrust remedy in my mind is to
protect the consumer. Your other goals are worthwhile but not really
the main point. Your Final Judgment does little really to protect
the consumer and in fact, denies the consumer access to intricacies
of the Judgment itself. The best outcome of this case would be to
divide Microsoft up into individual entities presumably an operating
systems division, an applications division, and a networking
division, sc at least, the hope anyway, the new divisions would at
least be on equal footing with competitors and Microsoft might be
prevented from deceiving consumers into believing all that is not
really an operating system, is.
Thank you for your consideration of this response.
MTC-00010547
From: Andrew Harrod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Andrew Harrod, M.A.L.D.
1512 Bremerton Lane
Keswick, VA 22947-9148
(434) 295-8328
To whom it may concern:
I wish to write in support of the proposed Microsoft anti-trust
settlement. I feel that the American taxpayers have supported this
law suit long enough and that it is time to move on.
Andrew E. Harrod
MTC-00010548
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:04am
Subject: Microsoft Overcharging
I think the charge that Microsoft has used its monopoly power to
overcharge the consumer is ludicrous. Don't understand how they can
be coincidentialy charged with overcharging the consumer and also
bundling additional capability into their products at no / low cost
to drive their competitors out of business. Also, it is clear that
Microsoft has been a catlyst for innovation in the computer
technology field rather than an inhibtor. Let's move on to something
more important like the pillage of Enron.
MTC-00010549
From: Bill Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
Microsoft also known herein as MS has intentionally restricted
use of the java programming language as an included feature in their
new browsers, siting various and conflicting criteria for doing so.
This prevents millions of websites with such existing technology
from having it used, prohibits good and fair trade and stifles
innovation. This feature can be worked around by the many of
millions of developers who created the content at a tremendous
expense in time and energy. A free web site that I developed (http:/
/www.SeeMyDesign.com) and continue provide for the good of society,
employs such technology and has been running successfully since 1997
but key features will become defunct because MS chooses to hurt the
end user.
This removal of industry standard functionality (has been free
and available for 5!! years in all browsers) is in light of MS
bundling many other features in the operating system which have the
effect of promoting and locking the users into the MS operating
environment and in effect, becoming free to those that purchase a
computer.
An example is the .mov movie MIME type that Apple computer
utilizes to dislay their interactive content on the windows
platforms. This change prevents Apple quicktime from properly
displaying and playing in to name an example: Windows2000. No
message or information is provided. This specific example can be
seen when viewing Quicktime VR content. Not only does a message not
pop-up in the browser indicating the content cannot be displayed,
but nothing happens at all--which for the average user, won't know
what action to take.
This small example is MS mode of operation and has been since
the beginning. I urge, beg and emplore you to make mandatory, an
invitation from MS to 3rd party vendors to include their windows-
certified softwares with the MS operating system install media
(CD's, etc.). I also strongly feel that MS should be penalized for
their past actions of which penalty should be of monetary nature and
provide good to the whole of humanity such as providing learning
material to schools, but NOT providing software and computer which
exasterbate the problem. Thank you for your consideration of these
issues and for providing a conscious for those that do not know
technology well enough to make informed decisions and those that do
know it well enough but don't use alternative tools because
comparable ones are bundled with the operating system. PLEASE
contact me if you have any questions, need a voice or would like
additional opinions.
Sincerely,
Bill Adams--Founder, www.SeeMyDesign.com
801-484-3319
[email protected]
MTC-00010550
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:26am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sir,
Please stop harrassing Microsoft for being so successful. Bill
Gates is one of the true heroes of this country. Please settle this
case.
[[Page 25317]]
Sincerely,
John S. Samolitis
1545 W. Chase #203
Chicago, Il 60626
773-764-5336
MTC-00010551
From: dusty holman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:47am
Subject: Microsoft
I am retired from Texaco after 39 years as an electrical
engineer.
I think you will find that if it was not for Bill Gates that the
computer industry would be in shambles.
Microsoft standardized computers and their operating system. If
it were not for Microsoft there would be chaos in operating systems
and no one would be able to walk up to a computer anywhere and
operate it.
How does Bill Gates overcharge for his products? I was under the
impression that in the USA you could charge anything you want to for
your own products..............if folks don't want to buy it they
don't have to.
You can always go out and build your own operating system. Like
Apple; like IBM. It is very simple as they found out.
For some reason I think the Justice Department is trying to
destroy Microsoft so the Chinese can take over
computers..........wonder why I think that?
Dusty Holman
MTC-00010552
From: Ruth Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am disappointed that the DOJ seems to have caved in to
Microsoft. This is a company that engages in clearly unethical
behavior. I can give you an example. A friend who is a consultant
works closely with a business organization and had his email account
through them and the ISP they used which also hosted their website.
The organization decided to make online ordering of their products
available to their customers.
In order to do this they needed ``shopping cart'' software and
decided to purchase that offered by Microsoft. They went to the
appropriate website to download it and went through all the steps to
do so. At the end when they clicked the button to complete the
process, the Microsoft website hijacked their website off their
ISP's server. They were unable to get the process undone. Phone
calls to Microsoft were futile. They all lost their email access as
a result
I don't care how much money Bill Gates donated to politicians.
This sort of behavior should be stopped.
Ruth Harris
Santa Rosa, CA
MTC-00010553
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:16am
Subject: Enough Already!
This country became the Great Country it is because of the free
marketplace. Why does the government feel it has the right to
control any part or faction of that marketplace. It has to stop
before you destroy the initiative of every small business in
America. Whenever the opportunity arises for Attorneys of any ilk to
practice their trade of twisted truths and distortions especially
against the free will of businessmen in America we, as a country
take another step towards their great socialist dream.
Thomas Stansbury,
Westminster, CA
MTC-00010554
From: madhavan.s. madhavan.s.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Sir,
I strongly in line with Sun's view of the issue as i am a Java
Developer and i am expecting the Java to play a leading and key role
in developing portable,cross-platform applications . So please keep
Microsoft out of this Monopolistic behaviour .
Regards,
S.Madhavan.
MADHAVAN.S
MTC-00010555
From: T-Bird Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:42am
Subject: microsoft settlement
7288 Graydon Drive
North Tonawanda, NY 14120-1453
(716) 695-6104
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the
Microsoft anti- trust dispute. I support Microsoft and am eager to
see this dispute come to a timely end. This agreement is thorough
and was reached after extensive negotiations and three years of
anti-trust dispute. Microsoft has agreed to carry out all provisions
outlined in this agreement, such as: disclosing more information
about certain internal interfaces in Windows and granting computer
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs. A technical oversight committee has
been created to monitor Microsoft compliance, and companies can sue
Microsoft if they feel the company is not complying.
We are facing very difficult economic times. We must do all we
can to focus on our lagging economy. It is time to let Microsoft
move on and forward. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Thomas Miller
MTC-00010556
From: Dean Stephens
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Stephens
6310 Green Valley Circle #305
Culver Cith, CA 90230
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial was always just one more of the ongoing
trial lawyer witch hunts. It is high time for this trial to be over.
In a hundred years, the people involved in witch hunts such as the
tobacco trials, and the Microsoft trial, will be reviled and
despised with the same feelings we have today for the bogts who
burned witches at the stale. And the investors who propel our
economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief, even as the innocent
victims of the previous witch hunts finally found peace.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of serving
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views on the
disgusting behavior of America's courts and its slimey lawyers.
Regards,
Dean Stephens
MTC-00010557
From: Chris Stackhouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keep the settlement as is. It has been agreed to by most of the
parties, the lawsuit and penalty has clearly made its point, the
donations will obviously improve access to computer technology for
the poorest schools and kids. Only Microsoft competitors are
complaining (or their state's attorneys general).
It's time to move on.
MTC-00010558
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Clinton spent 40 million going after Bill Gates rather than
capture bin Laden when he had the chance. Now look where we're at
and where are the priorities. Bill Gates is what America is about,
the chance to make a difference in the lives of a lot of people and
contribute to the economy and provide a lot of jobs. He used his
brains to make a buck and many bucks for a lot of people. Because of
the DOJ and some crybaby companies everyone in America has lost
something. Leave it alone and go after something worthwhile. We in
this family are angry.
Mary Linker
MTC-00010559
From: Bebu Corp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Party,
I think that the Microsoft Settlement is not enough. I work in a
non-profit organisation providing refurnished old computers to the
poor and disabled. Microsoft has prohibited us from refurnishing old
computers with Windows 95 on them. While this operating system is
old and unsupported by Microsoft anymore, they still require us to
obtain a
[[Page 25318]]
license to ``give away'' these donated computers.
I wish that the settlement will consider organisations like ours
because we are not breaking hurting anyone but Microsoft is still
screwing us up. Those computers were donated to us for free and we
simply format the computers, install the old Windows 95 or Windows
3.1 with slower computers, and donate them to new immigrants, poor
families, disabled people and orphan homes. We make no money and all
of our helpers are doing voluntary work.
Yours Faithfully,
Daniel
MTC-00010560
From: Thamaraiselvan P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi there,
i am strongly opposing Micorosoft Monopoly. This will slowdown/
reduce the innovative software development/products. They should
provide API/Specification for their products like WORD/EXCEL etc.
thanx..
ThamaraiSelvan.P
Member Technical Staff--ADG
E-mail : [email protected]
Phone : 5522252/7 ext :511
www.Planetasia.com
``You don't know what you can get away with until you try.''
MTC-00010561
From: rumpwrr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:33am
Subject: Settelment
For God sake settle this thing now. Microsoft is only guilty of
creating a standard operating system that allows all computers to
easily communicate. Designing a useful standard is why ``Windows''
is popular not because Microsoft has some sort of manopoly. If the
competion in the nine states can't compete let them go out of
business.bill Rumpza
MTC-00010562
From: James Wine
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 3:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Wine
5817-20th Ave
Sacramento, CA 95820-3107
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
James M. Wine
MTC-00010563
From: jean martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is high time, and long past, to get the Microsoft antitrust
case settled and done with. I am almost sure that the very beginning
of the economic downturn we are currently trying to climb out of,
was first initiated due to the anti-business, anti-capitalist
attitude of the previous Administration. I am in full support of the
current Administration in its desire to get this case settled
without further action. Enough is enough. Please ``call off the
dogs''.
Jean L. Martin, M.A., M.S.S.W. (retired)
Richardson, Texas
MTC-00010564
From: Evans Hollandsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 6:19am
Subject: get over it
Microsoft is definitely guilty!!!!!!!--of using the ``free
enterprise'' system which i think has made this country great. Why
do we//You want to punish someone for being very successful???
The folks that are pushing these suits are mad cause they didn't
have the foresight, intelligence, determination that Bill Gates had.
Gates has given the whole world a usable product.
Let him alone!!!!
Evans Hollandsworth
MTC-00010565
From: Philipp Resl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 6:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am part of the worldwide network that is working to get BeOS
back into the market place, but there is no hope to succes if the
following issues aren't addressed:
At first I think it is important to make dual-boot options
mandatory, moreover open Office file formats would be a great thing.
I hope this letter helps, and I wish you all the best for your
Settlement!
with regards,
Philipp Resl
MTC-00010566
From: sangchul shin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very much concerned about the possibility that Microsoft
continue its monoploy on the desktop operating system. It has been
proven several times that Microsoft in fact have used its monopoly
position to crush the competition. And that is precisely what the
court has found: Microsoft broke the law. Now I am amazed U.S.
government's leniency toward Microsoft. I want to make sure that you
know I am utterly opposed to the US government position on this
matter and call for more severe punishment against Microsoft.
MTC-00010567
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Your proposed settlement with Microsoft is unbelievably lenient.
It is as if you were not in the courtroom when the evidence was
presented. The best observer of this case was Judge Jackson. What
the appeals court had to say about his opinions missed the fact that
he observed the evidence being presented.
I have been in the software business for 20 years. It is my
opinion that your settlement does not go far enough.
Don't cash your checks from Microsoft. Somebody might find out
that you have been bought.
I am a Texan, a republican, and a Bush supporter, but if I find
out that Bush had anything to do with this settlement, he will not
get my vote next election.
Go back to what Judge Jackson thought was appropriate. His
supposed BIAS could not have been pre-existing. His opinions were
formulated based on the evidence presented by David Boies.
You have made a mistake, fix it.
Dick Hollenbeck
President, SoftPLC Corporation
SoftPLC, Open Architecture Control Software
[email protected]
Ph: 512/264-8390
Fx: 512/264-8399
http://www.softplc.com
I want to be what I was, when I wanted to be what I am now.
MTC-00010568
From: Brent L. Roulier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:50am
Subject: DOL Settlement with Microsoft.
The time has come to bring this case to a close. The proposed
settlement needs to be implemented. We need to get the economy
moving forward, Every minute of delay further hurts America.
Brent & Diane Roulier
MTC-00010569
From: Mike Strong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 9:11 am
Subject: CC scolding sent to Microsoft
You will never be able to volunteer a resolution to your
infractions because you are incapable of recognizing any culpability
for
[[Page 25319]]
inappropriate, anti-competitive practices on your part. In your
minds, if there is ANY competition remaining in the universe, on any
level, on any product, you are totally justified (in your minds) to
pursue the most aggressive, monopolistic behaviors that you can you
squelch that nook of remaining resistance.
The inanity of your settlement proposal of dumping a billion
dollars or so of your own products onto the public sector as a token
apology for crimes and indiscretions you obviously do not believe
that you've even committed is more than ludicrous. It's insulting.
You are flooding the educational sector with your own products,
fostering a future dependency on your products.., which computer
companies have done as an explicit marketing strategy for decades
(DEC was the best at this during the seventies with Universities,
and Apple in elementary schools). In addition to taking all the
benefits of that, business-wise, you try to spin it as some sort of
spectacularly sacrificial consolation for your detractors. While you
are patting yourselves on your backs, I should think that you are
probably writing it all off your corporate taxes at the same time.
While I don't know that you've had the audacity to pull that third
maneuver, I would expect it. I do not fault the tactic as a business
tactic. Rather, I am incensed that you would try to blatantly spin
it as penance.
As a computer professional who has developed on your platforms
for 15 years, and who has developed products targeted for Microsoft
platforms all during that time, I have had enough. You have
virtually never cooperated with good, industry standards. Everyone
else involved always mistrusts your participation on various
standards committees. You only feign to go along for a short time to
get your bearings until you can finalize plans for your own,
proprietary, parallel standard. You want the world to only have you
or the rest of the world to choose from standards wise, and you work
feverishly to make use what they are already dependent upon you for
to coerce them into accepting your proprietary alternatives to
emerging standards.
Microsoft should have embraced J2EE..NET is a total offense to
me professionally. Your subscription-licensing model, while suitable
in a few contexts, where clear, on-going service and value are being
provided, is otherwise a subtle trap that you are laying down.
Because some people have become content with earlier versions of
certain MS products that have been perfectly adequate for them, you
cannot bear having them not make their annual sacrifice at your
alter. You feel compelled to ensnare everyone into putting out their
financial arm for an unending IV transfusion into your wallet. You
want to be the all-encompassing public utility for all activities,
all commerce, all enterprise functionality and endeavors.
The fact that you have done many good things, and made many
wonderful products that all of us want to support you in, such as
Microsoft Word, et al, makes your excesses, indiscretions, and greed
all the more egregious and scandalous.
You must be resisted by the most aggressive means. I will
boycott your products and services every chance I can in every
context that I can, and I will actively encourage others to do so,
until and unless you demonstrate some willingness to behave well.
While aggressive competitiveness is the ``American way'', it comes
with rules of engagement and fair play. If you've won 90% of the
monopoly board, you must be reconciled to the fact that you have to
begin to play the game differently. What was OK 15 to 20 years ago,
can no longer be the mind set by which you operate today.
Either accept the separation of the OS business from the
applications business, or accept public-utility style regulation.
You have to accept one or the other at this point, or you will be
taking a position of overt evil. No amount of rationalization or
word-smithing will be able to assuage the wrath you will deserve.
Mike Strong HM: 512-259-0723
321 Mesa Oaks MBL: 512-970-0637
Leander, TX 78641-8937 FAX: 413-581-3847
MTC-00010570
From: John Bintz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the two most important parts of this settlement are the
IE bundling with Windows to kill Netscape and the inability for OEMs
to allow dual-booting PCs. For the longest time, Netscape had the
much superior product to Microsoft, but once IE became bundled with
Windows, and the only way to get an alternative browser was to
download a several megabyte file over a phone line connection, most
average users say, ``What's the point? I've got the `e' here. I'll
just use that.'' The average user balks at both file downloading and
program installation. It's no wonder Netscape holds so little market
share right now, and what is lest is slowly eroding away (my work's
Web traffic logs indicate that 80% of external traffic right now is
IE, 15% is Netscape).
The dual boot restriction on OEM PCs also killed the Be software
company and their competing operating system BeOS. BeOS was a very
powerful, Unix/Amiga-like platform built from the ground up to be
the ultimate media processing foundation. Hitachi wanted to make a
dual boot Windows/BeOS machine, but because of OEM restrictions,
users of the Hitachi FLORA had to go through numerous steps to
enable the BeOS part of the hard drive. No normal user could be
expected to follow all these steps just to enable an alternative
operating system. Their response? ``But it goes to Windows just
fine! Why do I need this Bee-thingy, anyway?''
Microsoft's inability to give the users control is what makes
them dangerous. If I want, I should be able to uninstall IE and put
a competing browser in there to replace it. Had Microsoft opened up
all of the
programming interfaces to the operating system, a competing browser
(such as Netscape or its offshoot Mozilla, which is what I'm using
right now) could seamlessly replace Internet Explorer and everyone
would be happy. Had Microsoft allowed OEMs to give visible dual-
booting options, companies like Dell wouldn't have to produce two
different lines of computers, one with Linux preinstalled and one
with Windows installed (and Be might still be around). You could get
a quad-booting Windows/Linux/FreeBSD/BeOS machine if you wished, and
consumers would be happy.
However, Microsoft is really taking advantage of the beginning
and non-power computer users with their very sneaky tactics. Try
explaining to a beginner that the `e' and the `n' do the same thing,
but that the `n' is better. ``Why is it better? The `e' came with
the computer!'' Or try explaining that there's different OSes out
there than Windows and you can use two different ones on your
computer. ``What, like those eyeMac thingies? My friend has one, and
her Word is all different. I told her to get a Gateway, and now her
Word looks right.'' It's the non-power users who are hurt most by
this, because Microsoft's practices limit their exposure to anything
non-Microsoft in any way they can.
Thank you.
MTC-00010571
From: Maria Hans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 9:36am
Subject: antitrust case.
Blank213 Blazer Court
Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The reason I am writing to you is to express my support for the
settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust case.
After three years and millions of dollars spent, both parties in
this case have agreed to bring it to an end. I plead with you to
avoid those special interests that are trying to have this case
resumed.
This settlement, despite the objections of opponents, is
equitable. With this settlement Microsoft has agreed to disclose its
internal interfaces and other previously secret code to competitors.
In fact Microsoft is sharing more secret information with
competitors in this settlement than any computer company has ever in
history shared. However for the opponents of the settlement this is
not enough, some of them won't be happy until Microsoft is
destroyed.
As Microsoft is one the most important American companies, and a
very large employer, I think it is wise to end the case against them
and let them focus on business. With this settlement, that will be
possible.
Sincerely,
Richard Hans/Maria Hans
MTC-00010573
From: Edward Hine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please keep the spirit of freedom which I feel Microsoft
Corporation represents. It seems that competitors are trying to
destroy this freedom with their own selfish goals.
Next time on line,
Andrea
[[Page 25320]]
MTC-00010574
From: curtis kreutzberg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
curtis kreutzberg
13623 south 300 east
draper, ut 84020
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
curtis kreutzberg
MTC-00010575
From: Mark Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:07am
Subject: Judgments
Regards:
1) I am a software professional that programs in a variety of
areas.
2) The fluid nature of our environment, particularly in the last
few years (the internet in particular) is a diverse area to
maintain, and requires knowledge of many areas.
3) There needs to be some sort of standards so this medium can
be of benefit to all, so for most needs, I use the non-profit/
impartial settings for this such as World Wide Web Consortium
(www.w3.org) for compliance purposes.
4) At some level in order to satisfy our clients, the ability to
be portable and satisfy our clients becomes, more specfic regarding
the operating environment they use vs. what we use to serve them.
Case in point (as a developer, I consider this a perfect example
of predatory practices):
1) Internet Explorer 6.0, Microsoft dropped/ restricted it's use
of software plugins, this changed a big area of the internet
programming arena.
How does this impact, what is predatory about it?
Well there are several areas to consider.
1) The User base, from a development standpoint most software
professionals have accepted the fact that the user prefers Windows
as the desktop, Mr. Gates has undoubtedly driven this, however many
competitors, particulary in the free software arena have come about,
it is up to us to educate the general public as we can about the
alternatives.
But by and large, the public is driving that end of the market.
2) Since the public drives the market, what happens when
Microsoft changes the game from a development standpoint? From a
business perspective, it forces Microsoft's lack of support onto the
support desks the of companies such as ourselves to resolve issues
that were a direct result of Microsoft's broad power to totally
change the market place. From an economics standpoint it can be
argued that this creates jobs and generates spending, however, for
the smaller businesses, this may not be an option.
3) This move along with the `NET' initiative in the current
release of Windows XP, further proves this predatory initiative
further, from a programming perspective it (Microsoft) is again
trying to garner market share through their vast influence by
further negating those initialtives that are currently in place to
try and establish a neutral ground for programming and delivery. How
so? Well, any previously neutral options become, again driven by the
public and the desktop, further forcing the programming community
into a position of
a) designing new methods to neutralize the change or...
b) submitting for financial reasons to Microsoft's drive over
the market.
I can name numerous other instances of this practice through the
last 15 years, I am sure you are aware of many of them, so I will
not bother enlightening you as to these areas, unless, you inquire
of me further.
In general, the public (in our affluent society) is duped by the
the `Wolf in Sheep's Clothing'; the only way to change this is to
educate them. But I am increasingly concerned, that this amount of
technology garnered in one area, is risky to the general nature of
our world (not just the U.S.). It seems strange that in some arenas,
there are virtually little or no virus attacks, but in Microsoft, it
is daily news, not to mention our own military utilizes this
technology (at least to some degree). I am not particularly a
negative person, but the long term implications of this practice to
continually drive market share and proliferate the use of a medium
that is not only bug prone but has a high propensity to propogate
rogue computer programs (as in viruses), is a scary thought indeed,
since a lot of our government is driven by this very software.
What would I do?
Well, I do think Microsoft has a lot to be credited for, no I do
not think they should be put out of business. They are doing what
our capitalist society is supposed to do, go after the dollar. But
there are ethical considerations that need to be addressed with the
amount of power this company possesses, and no amount of publicists
can address them through recommending humanitarian donations, and
foundations for Microsoft to make them look better in the public's
eyes. The fact of the matter is, is most of the public is oblivious
to long term implications, nor do they care, until it effects them.
Having said that, I will proceed...
1) This power needs to be dispersed, i.e. it is so powerful,
that if allowed to persist, at the very least, it needs a body to
govern it, not unlike our government does, we know this as the
`checks and balances' (the Judiciary Branch, The House and Senate,
and the President).
This method is the one that governs our capitalistic society, so
it sould work and be fair for Microsoft.
2) If you are not going to divide it up, so all this technology
does not reside in one faceless giant's realm, at least develop a
governing body consisting of consumer/technical expertise that has
an unbiased and educated hand in this direction our society and
technology has taken us. These people have to be unencumbered by
lobbyists. There are many such organizations trying to do this now
(though all may not be in our country). This is a basis for
argument, but is is a compromise between break up or allowing these
sensitive areas to be continually changed with the main
consideration being market share.
3) The alternative, if the above is not acceptable is to
continue on with the original remedies proposed by breaking up
Microsoft, as originally proposed. If the Department of Justice
fails to provide a remedy to this, the potential to subvert our
society exists and will only get easier if the power of this entity
is not dispersed.
It is my hope that this will be read with an open mind and with
consideration, not just another faceless citizen. Until the last DOJ
remedy, I have given much faith to my government to provide the
correct course of action, however, I have become increasingly
concerned with the methods of arriving at these judgements. I
understand that some remedies will not meet with my own personal
approval, and can live with that, but I feel a compelling need to
appeal to the good of all, not just a base of satisfied internet
users.
There is more to this than meets the eye, it is not meant to be
`evil' as some refer to it, but there does not appear to be a checks
and balances system for this technology and I do not believe that it
is a purely monopolistic approach. I equate the proliferation of
this broad range of technology with the invention of the atomic
bomb.
With great freedom, comes great responsibility, and that
responsibility also compels us to look further than our pocketbooks
or predatory marketing practices. We have a responsibilty make our
country aware of the power of this, and first we need to become
responsible enough as a society to be able to use this technology
both morally and safely.
It has already showed it's (the technology) ability to be a very
positive thing for humanity, but the negative uses are just as
numerous.
[[Page 25321]]
In summation, I do think something more appropriate than the
current remedies is in order.
I feel that too much power (not just market power) resides in
this company's (Microsoft) ability to drive the market. This power
needsto be dispersed.
MTC-00010576
From: Stephen T. Spray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:22am
Subject: Congratulations to Judge Motz
Any knowledgable user of Microsoft products is fully aware of
the bundling and the games they have played for years to frustrate
competition from competitors.
Congratulations to Judge Motz for taking a stand for open
competition in the real spirit of what has made America great. A
deal in which the guilty party is the architect of the punishment is
the worst sort of abuse imaginable, but it is typical of Microsoft's
arrogance that they would thing they could get by with it. I am so
glad they have not--so far.
Stephen T. Spray
Huntsville, Alabama
MTC-00010577
From: Michael Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft has cost my father a couple of jobs, I have lost
opportunities because of them. If I am going to say anything that
sticks with you it is hack them up like at&t/ma-bell, if anyone is
going to believe in the justice system it is on your heads. some of
the things microsoft has done, and continues to do, I think could
land someone like me in prison for life. but since they have so much
money and influence they are getting a slap on the wrist. do you
think people will believe in the justice system if the wealthy and
powerful can walk all over it, but joe blow you or I die by it.
Where is our david......? We have a rampaging Goliath!
MTC-00010578
From: Charles Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has a superior product that has world wide
distribution because it is the best. Let them continue to expand
their technology for the benefit of all of us.
Thank you.
Charles P. Crawford
MTC-00010579
From: Paquette, Robert
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
13 Osprey Drive
Berkley, MA 02779-2337
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I support the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and
the Justice Department. This agreement will be good for the public
by allowing Microsoft to focus on more innovation and new software
development.
Although I did not agree with the commencement of this suit in
the first place, I agree with Microsoft that it is time to move
forward. One is that Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers
broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft
software programs that compete with programs included within
Windows. This will allow computer makers to replace access to
various features of Windows with access to non-Microsoft software
such as programs from AOL Time Warner or RealNetworks.
As the Director of Technology for a small business in
Massachusetts, I understand the importance of Microsoft's products
for our economy. The company has done much to standardize
development in this country and improve worker productivity. I trust
your strong leadership for this settlement will continue.
With highest regards,
Robert Paquette
cc: Representative Barney Frank
MTC-00010580
From: prockett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:31am
Please support the original court's decision on microsoft. Bill
Gates is way ahead of the crowd in ideas and they are jealous.
Pat Rockett
MTC-00010581
From: Jerry (038) Phyllis Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Trial Comments
Dear Sir:
I am writing to ask the Justice Department to settle the
Microsoft trial. I believe this trial has squandered taxpayers'
dollars, and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech
industry. I have lost money on my Microsoft stock, as many others
have. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. I believe a settlement of
this case will be in the public interest. And I can think of better
things to spend our taxpayer's money on than targeting another
corporation.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Price
P O Box 6307
Maryville TN 37802.
MTC-00010582
From: Randall Weytens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Case
To the United States Department of Justice,
I am sending this letter in response to the U.S. Department of
Justice's acceptance of public comments on the Microsoft Case.
I do not think that Microsoft has violated any laws. This is why
I think so: Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is only possible
when other companies are not allowed to enter the marketplace by
law, and Microsoft does not create or enforce the law.
Microsoft has never used force in the marketplace. Microsoft has
never told businesses to do something at the point of a gun. They
trade only when the transaction will benefit them. To survive in the
free marketplace, a business cannot sacrifice itself to others and
be successful. Microsoft has not violated any businesses or
individual rights. The only possible way to violate another's rights
is to steal, damage or destroy private property (from the first form
of property, a person's body, on up to material and intellectual
property).
I think the attack on Microsoft is illegal because:
To tell Microsoft to give away their source code is a violation
of property rights. They have purchased or developed their code
legally, by themselves. It is intellectual property, and it is
theirs.
To break up the company is to violate their property rights. The
company has a right to their property (everything from buildings to
software source code), and therefore the right to bundle, integrate,
or offer separately their software in any manner they choose. If
someone does not like Microsoft software, buy something else. (There
is Apple and Linux, to name a few, amongst others). Microsoft has
brought value to the marketplace by offering affordable, well
designed solutions that individuals all over the world use and
enjoy. They have brought immeasurable profits and benefits to the
businesses and individuals that use their software, enhancing their
productivity by leaps and bounds. If Microsoft was no good at what
they do, they would not be successful. People would not buy their
products. The only legal and moral way to end Microsoft's grip on
the marketplace is to produce something better than Microsoft has.
In order for humans to survive, they must think. Reason is not
automatic. Those who choose to think have the chance of survival.
Survival is not guaranteed, because some will be better at thinking
than others. The Constitution of the United States, which is based
on this idea, does not guarantee a businesses survival in the
marketplace. They are not entitled to x number of customers, or x
percent market share. They are not guaranteed subsidies from the
American people or a share of another's ideas.
Business is based on the law of survival. If you can produce
something that is good, that people are willing to buy, then you
will survive. Do not, and you will not. Microsoft embodies this
principle. They have succeeded. People like, use and want their
software.
I think that America is the best place on earth, because it is
the only one based on true, moral principles.
The ideas, that one is entitled to something just because it
exists, that have motivated the attacks on Microsoft is what will
send us all
[[Page 25322]]
to hell in a hand basket. These ideas are based on
Altruism, the foundation of everything that is anti-American.
America became great because it enforced the rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of
happiness. I hope that these rights will still be defended, and that
Microsoft will be left to do business as usual, their way.
Thank you for your consideration,
Randall J. Weytens
CC: Jessica Wanless, Paul Millard, Randall Weytens
MTC-00010583
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ
I believe the settlement in m/soft is fair and reasonable. In
view of the serious issues involved and the time taken to come to
resolution and because of the lower court judge's impertinent and
unjudicial remarks which could provoke a new trial and prolong this
matter even further, this matter is ripe for settlement, and the
parties should be allowed to settle this long and hard fought
dispute.
Please cast my vote to put this matter behind us and move
forward. We need to conquer a recession-not keep rehashing this old
news.
Michael Cole
Attorney at Law
Calif Bar #37417
MTC-00010584
From: George McClure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:45am
Subject: attorney general letter sent
MTC-00010586
From: Bill Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi Mr. Ashcroft,
Enclosed is an attachment in defense of Microsoft Corporation.
Thanks,
William M. Wagner Jr. 13 Osprey Drive
Berkley, MA 02779-2337 January 12, 2002 Attorney General John
Ashcroft US Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I support the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and
the Justice Department. This agreement will be good for the public
by allowing Microsoft to focus on more innovation and new software
development.
Although I did not agree with the commencement of this suit in
the first place, I agree with Microsoft that it is time to move
forward. One is that Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers
broad new rights' to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included
within Windows. This will allow computer makers to replace access to
various features of Windows with access to non-Microsoft software
such as programs from AOL Time Warner or RealNetworks.
As the Director of Technolo9Y for a small business in
Massachusetts, I understand the importance of Microsoft's products
for our economy. The company has done much to standardize
development in this country and improve worker productivity. I trust
your strong leadership for this settlement will continue. With
highest regards,
Robert Paquette
cc: Representative Barney Frank
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00010587
From: Bob Harler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:08am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT 6959 South Highway 76 Russell Springs,
KY 42642 January 11, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft U.S.
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to you in support of Microsoft regarding the
antitrust settlement. Microsoft did not deserve to be the target of
antitrust litigation. They reached their point of market dominance
solely due to the superiority of their product. Other vendors of
software could not adequately compete with a product line that had
been so overwhelmingly welcomed by the world's computer users.
Superior product development is what placed Microsoft at the
pinnacle of market dominance, not illegal marketing.
That being said, I do agree with steps being taken to ensure
illegal marketing does not take place. But punishing Microsoft for
producing a superior product smacks of allowing their whiny
competitors to use the U.S. legal system to enhance their own market
position. That practice should be considered as unfair and illegal
as the alleged Microsoft practices.
I appreciate your time in this matter.
Sincerely, Robert M. Harler
MTC-00010588
From: charles messler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
This protracted litigation is akin to trying to milk a dead cow.
Clearly, it smacks of an abuse of the legal system by attorneys
interested more in fees than a just settlement.
I can see nothing wrong with Microsoft's efforts to integrate
functions in any of their current Operating System platforms. To say
that it disadvantages Apple (MAC) is ingenuous. There are MAC people
and there are PC people. PC people are less likely to be graphics
oriented, and prefer the control that Windows gives them. The
integration is a plus. What is to stop MAC from innovating
rather than cry help? Information Technology has a life cycle
measured in months. Any settlement will be partly out of date before
it can be approved.
It still galls me to recall Mr. Klein, Janet Reno and group
cavorting like children when the now chastised judge made his
findings of law.
Thought should be given to the millions of Microsoft
shareholders that will be affected by the actions of the DOJ.
Consider retirement assets that have already been decimated, albeit
not to the extent of Enron.
Let the individual States fight in the Supreme Court if they are
not satisfied with an omnibus settlement.
Thank you,
Charles L. Messler
MTC-00010589
From: Jared Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:33am
Subject: My Opinion
To whom it may concern,
I have followed the microsoft antitrust case with interest. I
believe that the Departmane of Justice should not settle the case,
and that the original findings of the case should be adhered to.
These are, in my opinion, the actions that should be taken:
Microsoft should be split, all application software should be
produced and sold by one portion that is split off, all operating
system software and support should belong to another portion.
All java language development should be halted by Microsoft.
This is not to say that they cannot use it, but that they must make
their browsers and operating systems 100% compliant with the Sun
Microsystems release. A monetary damages fee should be paid to the
holders of the Netscape Software company.
Internet Explorer must be spun off to its own company,
completely separate from the applications and the operating systems
producers.
It is not fair, cor correct, for Microsoft to lose a judgement
that it is a monopoly, then use the money it has illegally earned
from that monopoly to buy off the Department of Justice.
Thank you,
Jared Davis
MTC-00010590
From: dblubbers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that this settlement should be accepted and done
quickly. This court case is one the the things that started the
downslide of our economy. I have been familiar with the computer
business since 1981 and am fully aware that certain companies are
using the government to overcome Microsoft as a competitor.
Sincerely, Beverly Lubbers
MTC-00010591
From: dblubbers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case immediately. It is a fair
settlement. Having been in the computer business since 1981, I am
aware that Microsoft's competitors are using the government to
attempt to control Microsoft as a competitor. The states do not wish
to settle because they see dollars to use for their budgets. We have
used Microsoft products since they started. We are thankful
[[Page 25323]]
that they have helped establish a standard software that we could all
safely build our businesses on. Thank you, Microsoft.
Dick Lubbers
MTC-00010592
From: Karen Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:55am
Subject: Settle the Suit, ASAP, Please Attorney General John
Ashcroft January 12, 2002 Department of Justice RE: Microsoft Suit
Pending
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Please let the Court know that you support the Bush
Administration and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
Please use all of the power of your office to make the settlement of
the aforementioned case come to an end by letting the Federal Judge
know that we, Americans want it to end and stop putting Microsoft
through all of this scrutiny. Please let the Federal Judge handling
this case hear from you, representing us, the consumers. Take action
today, and in support this proposed settlement.
Thank you for your speedy work in this matter. Thank you for
your con- tinued integrity that you have displayed in the past and I
know, will in the future.
Sincerely yours,
Karen W. Hunt
8931 Gaylord # 166
Houston, Texas 77024-2910
(713) 464-8153
MTC-00010593
From: Alan Vier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
My view on the Microsoft anti-trust is that they should be free
to innovate. I also feel that they are not using their ``nopoly'' in
terms of pricing. The os is very complex and to get an upgrade for
under $100.00 is a bargin! It would be nice if everybody could use
their time and profits to better use than to spend it in court!
I do feel that Microsoft should not leverage their ``monopoly''
in terms of dealer preferences or limiting other companies to
innovate.
Let us remember that it is Microsoft that tries to allow others
to write applications for the PC vs Apple and others that limit
hardware and make it more difficult to write software. It was
Microsoft that allowed others to innovate other hardware and
software applications that made to PC so popular.
Sun and the like should fight their battles in the marketplace
and not in court. Linix is putting perssure on Microsoft to keep
prices down and innovate, which is the way it should be.
In summary,
Let the bright create and not fight!
MTC-00010594
From: Charles B. Stinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Charles B. Stinson Lighthouse Road
P.O.Box 62 Prospect Harbor, Maine 04669-0062 Tel 207/963-2677 Email
ckelp@acadia. net January 14, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am in support of the current settlement between Microsoft and
the Department of Justice at the federal level. Microsoft has
produced some of the best products for the computer, which accounts
for their vast success and status as an industry leader. There have
been some instances in the past where making a choice in peripheral
Windows components was overly difficult, which is one of the reasons
I am in favor of the current settlement. I understand that from this
time forward Microsoft products will be much more accommodating to
the use and integration of competitors software peripherals. This is
definitely a step forward, because I believe above all else the
consumer should have the right to choose, to mix and match software
as they see fit.
Another important reason for ending the antitrust proceedings
swiftly is the strain, which our economy is currently under. The
information technology industry is one of the biggest in the United
States, and the antitrust suit has hurt this industry. Not only
Microsoft has felt the burden of these proceedings, commercial
retailers who sell MS products, employees of said retailers,
Microsoft affiliated companies, stock holders, and the American tax
payers have all been impacted by the antitrust suit. Given the
current down turn in our nations economy, now is not the time to be
wasting our resources in the court room when they could be better
utilized elsewhere. Therefore I support the antitrust settlement,
and urge you to do the same.
Sincerely,
Charles Stinson
MTC-00010595
From: Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D. 7608
Geronimo Circle N. Little Rock, AR 72116 January 12, 2002 Microsoft
Settlement U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ludwik J. Kozlowski SR., M.D.
MTC-00010596
From: Harold Berenson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Harold Berenson 20110 218th Ave NE
Woodinville, WA 98072-7145 January 12, 2002 Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Harold R. Berenson
MTC-00010597
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/12/02 12:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
My opinion and comments: Microsoft should get off the
hook??four years is enough?? If another company
has a better operating system??they should show it and the
world will buy it instead of XP. My County and my City has computers
and training in every Library Thanx to Bill Gates. Their Software is
reasonably priced??litigation is never reasonable in
cost.??Let???s settle it now??
Charles Murrell,
Redding California.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,SLATER455 @aol.com@inetgw,Ce...
MTC-00010598
From: bs--crotteau
[[Page 25324]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get on with it. Make the settlement and let Microsoft get
back to being a major contributor in the high-tech world. One of the
few places where the USA still holds competitive advantage.
Thanks,
BC
MTC-00010599
From: Alan Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
Dear Sir or Madam
The time has come for the scumbags in the Justice Department to
stop the suit against Microsoft, get off the dole and go to work.
Alan Hansen
124 North 155st
Shoreline Wa.98133
Have a nice day,
Al
MTC-00010602
From: Juanema Hinesley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Juanema Hinesley 5733 Hwy 9 E Shirley
, AR 72153-6033 January 12, 2002 Microsoft Settlement U.S.
Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Juanema Hinesley
MTC-00010604
From: Samuel Golf
To: Microsoft ATR,MicrosoftComments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 1/12/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
To the minds of many Americans, the results of the Microsoft
Antitrust case have called into question the integrity of our legal
system as well as our political process. And to those which have not
yet noticed, I think historians will take note on behalf of future
generations.
In the past few years, Americans have been outraged at
revelations of Chinese attempts to influence our political process
through campaign contributions. It is well established in fact that
Microsoft did give massive campaign contributions to members of
congress and one erstwhile presidential candidate, namely George W.
Bush. Additionally, lobbying efforts--either directly or
indirectly--were made to others in congress as well as the Justice
Department.
In light of these facts, it was with horror and dismay that I
watched the direction and aspiration of the Justice Department's
antitrust efforts change nearly 180 degrees following the
presidential election (in stark contrast to previous tradition). The
dangerous message which is being broadcast here is manifold:
First, it is possible to commit a serious crime in this country,
be found guilty of committing that crime, and by manipulating the
length of the trial beyond the term of a presidential administration
it is possible to escape the original intentions of your
prosecutors, effectively nullifying the most detrimental outcomes.
Second, the concept of ``one man, one vote'' is a joke in this
country. Here we vote with dollars, and the more dollars you have,
the more votes you get to make.
Third, and most disturbing, there is no longer separation of
powers between the executive and judicial branches of government, as
the framers of our constitution wisely intended. At other times in
our history, foreigners committing similar acts have been imprisoned
for treason. At other times in our history, Americans committing
similar acts have been tried--and committed--for racketeering.
Additionally, when people have knowingly submitted false
evidence in a trial, they have been tried and committed for
perjury--again, leading to imprisonment. Microsoft was actually
caught in the act of falsifying videotapes entered into evidence not
once, not twice, but three times in the course of its antitrust
trial.
I cannot recall when such egregious acts been ever been treated
so lightly in America. Please keep in mind that we are not talking
about abstract concepts of ``harm to consumers'' or ``diminished
competition in the computer market''. We are talking about the very
palpable pain and suffering of literally tens of thousands of hard-
working people losing their jobs, businesses, and
fortunes when Microsoft's illegal acts bankrupted thousands of
businesses. Most of these businesses did not fail because they were
making inferior products, nor because they were poorly managed, but
because of the unlawful acts of an unfair competitor.
Meanwhile the founders, employees, and investors in Microsoft
have made literally billions of dollars as a result of these illegal
actions -which apparently everyone who benefited gets to keep. Where
is the deterrent to committing the same illegal acts in the future?
Microsoft has already been found guilty of violating antitrust
laws. The entire reason the antitrust trial occurred is due to
Microsoft's violations of a previous consent decree. Now the Justice
Department proposes to remedy Microsoft's behavior with yet another,
impotent consent decree. This solution defies logic: When someone is
found guilty of breaking laws, the punishment amounts to making them
say ``I'm sorry'' and then promise not to do it again. Of course
when the same perpetrator commits the exact same crime again (except
worse) the new, improved punishment amounts to making them saying
``I'm really, REALLY sorry this time'' and promise not to do it
again. Ever.
Except with Microsoft, they haven't even acknowledged that they
are guilty. Publicly they maintain that they are the ones being
injured by the ``overzealous'' efforts of the Justice Department
(which at this point is anything but ``zealous''). Microsoft is
nowhere near saying ``I'm sorry.'' So with Microsoft's established
pattern of breaking consent decrees, what assurance do the American
people have that they will actually adhere to this new one?
Other arguments diminishing the need for drastic remedies
similarly defy logic: Some would have us believe that with AOL
purchasing Netscape, the competitive landscape has changed faster
than the trial could proceed, so there is no longer any need for
anything to be done. Perhaps we should apply the same logic in a
murder trial: once a murderer has completed killing their victim,
there is no longer any need for punishment, because there is no way
that the victim could possibly be harmed again. Microsoft
effectively put Netscape out of business (it would never have been
possible for AOL to purchase them without a tremendous devaluation
of their stock); their products are no longer used widely, and they
have lost all power to compete in the market with Microsoft--not
because they produced an inferior product, but as a direct result of
Microsoft's illegal and anticompetitive acts.
An effective remedy should be one which does not cost the
American taxpayer the burden of a Saddam Hussein-style inspections
of Microsoft's internal workings. As with nuclear inspections of
Iraq, Microsoft has demonstrated its willingness to play a shell
game with incriminating evidence. No, clearly Microsoft's past
behavior demands that an intelligent person require permanent
structural change to the company to pave the way for real
competition in the computing market, and will furthermore show that
in America, nobody is above the law--no matter how much money or
political influence they wield.
The nature of Microsoft's unfair advantage which they have
abused in the past comes from the collusion of several essentially
separate business units, which must be cleaved in the remedy stage
of this trial in order to have lasting beneficial impact:
1) operating system (OS) software
[[Page 25325]]
2) software development tools
3) productivity applications software
4) Internet client & server software
5) media software (Windows media, et al)
6) hardware
7) thousands of substantial holdings in other companies in disparate
markets
Due to the massive size of Microsoft and its demonstrated
ability to abuse this clout, simply dividing the company into two
would still produce two rabid 800-pound gorillas, rather than two
well-behaved chimps willing to play nicely in their respective
markets. Three or four separate entities--with mechanisms in place
to prevent continued collusion--are required to restore healthy
competition to all these markets. Furthermore, Microsoft should be
required to divest itself of holdings in other companies, which it
also uses to maintain and extend its monopolies. Additionally,
restitution should be required, considering the billions of dollars
in gains that Microsoft and its investors have accrued as a result
of these illegal practices. There simply must be a deterrence to
breaking the law, and keeping the profit of billions is not a
deterrence. Since our entire society has been damaged by Microsoft's
actions, our entire society should receive restitution--to the tune
of tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars--in the form of
infusions to our nation's education system. Contrary to the previous
proposals in civil suits, Microsoft should have no control--directly
or indirectly -over the ways in which this money is spent. It could
be used to offer equal technological access to all in our society,
as well as explore implementing exciting new possibilities for
integrated accelerative learning approaches that have been proven
around the world to work eminently better than our own current
system.
I also feel that officials at Microsoft should be prosecuted for
racketeering and perjury efforts which occurred both during and
after the antitrust trial. Again, people in our society should be
treated equally in the eyes of the law, no matter how deep their
pocket books happen to be. Also, the suggestion of making
Microsoft's OS source code ``public source'' would simply benefit
Microsoft, by encouraging wider adoption of the OS, because it would
essentially be FREE. This would mimic the cycle of damage done to
Netscape when Microsoft chose to give away Internet Explorer. In the
``public source'' scenario, Microsoft would also benefit from the
combined efforts of thousands of programmers attempting to fix the
many thousands of bugs that are known to exist within its operating
systems. Microsoft has the particularly slimy business model of
knowingly releasing software which is profoundly flawed, then
charging its customers for a re-labeled product which partially
fixes the bugs found in the previous generation, along with some
additional new features and new bugs. This has been the business
model of ``upgradeware'' that Microsoft has employed when convincing
people to upgrade from Windows 95, to Windows 98, to Windows ME, and
now Windows XP.
Recall that separation of powers and the public's faith in the
integrity of the American political and judicial processes are
literally what is at stake as the remedies are applied in this
trial. Please show Microsoft that they are not above the law.
I offer my sincere appreciation for your time and consideration.
Samuel Goff
MTC-00010605
From: Mathieu Frenette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a Java Software Architect who really cares about the
outcomes of the settlement--especially long term results--for they
may bring down my entire open-source-multiple-platform-
technological-freedom-world forever. No matter the usefulness of
Microsoft's products, I just can't imagine a world with *only* that.
Unfortunately, it seems to be the direction things are going.
I'm afraid this settlement has a much greater impact than what
most people are aware of, for it will communicate to Microsoft
whether or not (and at what degree) the entire world is willing to
accept a ``technological despotism''.
Technological lock-in, altogether with their new operating
systems (ie. WindowsXP) which slowly puts them in the middle of
litterally everything-- including worldwide E-commerce--will bring
them even closer to this ``technological despotism''.
In this respect, I sincerely believe the settlement should serve
as a warning to Microsoft, clearly stating that the world is not
letting go of its technological freedom.
Thank you profoundly for taking the time to review people's
comments...
Best regards,
Mathieu Frenette
Java Software Architect
Freeborders Canada
[email protected]
MTC-00010606
From: Richard Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:04pm
Subject: Amazing indeed....
Dear Sirs:
As a software engineer, and president of a technology company, I
am astounded that the government cannot clearly see what Microsoft
has done over the past several years. They have leveraged their
monopoly to further strengthen their position, and effectively
freeze out new, and for the most part better technologies. The most
amazing part of this whole situation, is that they continue with
business as usual, and for the most part nothing happens. They
manage to tie things up in the courts for years, while technology
keeps moving forward, and their position continues to strengthen.
Nothing short of a breakup will stop this monopoly, and allow
technology in this country to move forward. When one looks to Europe
and Asia,
where Microsoft is not so entrenched, that is where technology is
thriving. Competition spurs innovation, but monopoly's stifle it.
With the recent introduction of the X-Box, Windows Multimedia
format in DVD's, and in refusing to support competing, yet superior
technologies (ie. Java) their monopolistic position only
strengthens. As a person that is directly involved in the industry,
it is so obvious as to the general strategy of Microsoft, it is a
shame that our learned justices can't see it also.
Regards,
Richard J. Becker
President
MATRIX Information Systems Inc.
MTC-00010607
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:12pm
Subject: Comment from consumer
It is obvious to many that the consumer is not the issue We know
that to buy a car piece by piece is outrageously more expensive and
would put most car owners out of the market.
Yet you want Microsoft put in a position where they cannot add
value to their product to the benefit of the consumer
The amount of money Microsoft has had to spend in courts and to
attorneys could have gone a long way in stopping world hunger and
health issues The consumer would also be way ahead without this
costly litigation.
That will benefit only a few competitors of Microsoft
The justice dept. as usual will end up screwing the consumer
Dick Wyatt
MTC-00010608
From: Derek Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is a very sad day in American history to see the DOJ
abandoning its role of protecting the American public. It's issues
such as the gov't's unwillingness to truly do what is right w/ MS
that leads the public to see the U.S. gov't as corrupt, ineffective
and protecting corporate interests over the needs of the general
public.
The real issue in the MS case is stopping its monopolizing
practices, which leads to further abuses and encroachments on
constitutional protections. Corporate monopolies develop and
function in a fashion not unlike authoritarian regimes, such as
fascism.
The proposed settlement really doesn't do anything to accomplish
this. The proof of this should be readily apparent to well-trained
attorneys and constitutional experts. One needs only to look at MS's
most recent behavior to grasp how ineffectual the DOJ has been.
Windows XP requires the purchaser to acquire an activation code
from MS upon installation. This code is really an inventory of one's
computers hardware. MS says it does not gather individually
identifying information from the computer, but my computer hardware
is my property, and I have a right to privacy regarding its content
and use.
The claim that activation is separate from registration, which
is essential for access to a variety of necessary services, such as
the support system. Registration does require submission of
identifying information, but MS claims it keeps this separate from
activation.
[[Page 25326]]
What guarantee do I have that MS will do this? Given their
behavior in the past, only a naive idiot would accept this. It is
unimaginable that the DOJ allows this. The founders of our nation
would be aghast at allowing a government agency to do this, let
alone a private company.
Yet, MS is undaunted in its practice because I believe they know
they can do what they want without any real action from the DOJ, or
other regulatory body. It bespeaks the kind of arrogance of the
early monopolists like JP Morgan, Rockfeller and the other early
20th century industrial tycoons.
I do not believe that MS paranoia about loosing profits from
software privacy entitles them to infringe on the civil liberties of
Americans. Apparently, the DOJ believes this as well because it has
failed to stop the MS monopoly.
As if this activation isn't enough, MS is even more intrusive.
If you change some of the hardware in your computer, such as cpu,
ram chips, harddrive, firewire cards, Windows XP de-activates
itself. You are then required to call MS and tell them what you have
done to your computer!. I added a firewire card to my pc, and had to
call them. It took two days to get a live person, but we've lived
with that for many years. When I reached their agent, she said,
``So, what are we doing today?'' The implication being that they
were entitled to know what I was doing with my pc. Incredible!
MS doesn't have a right to know this. They have sold me a copy
of XP, and it does not include my giving up my rights to privacy.
The point is that we are forced to put up with this because: We
have no other viable options when it comes to an OS. They have a
monopoly. Why doesn't the DOJ grasp this? Does the settlement get at
this?
Obviously not because MS continues to do these kinds of things.
One can also see very clearly where they're heading next. It
does not take a genius to see that they are going to incorporate MSN
into the OS, just as they did with Explorer. Then signs are already
there. To get access to certain services, such as support, you have
to have MS Passport, which is part of MSN.
Further you have to take their instant messaging, and you cannot
even delete it from your system. They have recently bought QWest's
internet system, which is now MSN. So they now have their own
internet. The next step is to claim MSN is part of the os, and force
people to pay for it in order to access the internet. They will do
this by changing Internet explorer to MSN. The DOJ's settlement with
MS is an abandonment of the US constitution, and the ideals that it
embodies.
The real solution is to take the API and make it public domain,
or force them out of every other business avenue they have been
pursuing, MSN, internet service provision, non-os applications, and
to stop them from abridging privacy.
It is hard to understand why DOJ cannot find the courage to what
is so obviously right for the American people, and in their best
interest, not a corporation's. Big Brother is here alright, but
Orwell was wrong in thinking it was the federal gov't, it's
Microsoft.
Derek Mason
Smithfield, UT
MTC-00010609
From: ME Conces
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:38pm
Subject: I am opposed to the government curtailing Microsoft's
innovation in the business world.
Objections
I am opposed to the government curtailing Microsoft's innovation
in the business world. Objectionists regret they can't keep up, so
they spend our money going to court to prove that in essence
Microsoft is better qualified than the opponents in moving
forward with innovation in the computer world. I feel Microsoft
should be able to place computers in the schools if they can do it.
Other companies are only objecting because they didn't think of it
first.
Mary Eileen Conces
[email protected]
MTC-00010610
From: W. Roger Gehman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren Gehman
126 Park Avenue
Mount Joy, PA 17552-1524
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Microsoft has gotten a raw deal as a result of a vendetta
against it by politicians and lawmakers. Microsoft in no way should
be broken up and should not be subject to many of the concessions it
is being forced to make.
For over a decade now, Microsoft has led the tech world in
innovation delivering the highest quality and most reliable products
and services to the market. At times their market dominance
precluded others from gaining an edge, but that forced competitors
to raise their performance levels, weeding out companies who were
not strong.
Microsoft cannot be punished for exhibiting vision and grit.
Bill Gates accomplished the American dream and should be able to
bask in his success, not wallow in political agendas. I urge your
office to support the settlement for the sake of American public.
Sincerely,
Warren Gehman
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
Representative George W. Gekas
MTC-00010611
From: miriamlarson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs, Lets resolve the Microsoft problem and get on to
bigger and better projects! I'm sure that you and your cronies have
spent enough time and money on this subject . . .
Sincerely,
Miriam Larson
Bremerton, Wash. 98311
MTC-00010612
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I submit that both the Courts and the Department of Justice have
a fundamental conflict of interest with respect to the antitrust
case against Microsoft. How can one possibly judge a company and
mete out fair justice when one depends upon that same company to do
one's daily work? I further submit that in the interests of justice,
Her Honor, her staff, and the DOJ team--at the very least--should
immediately henceforth and until the conclusion of the case, cease
and desist from using any Microsoft products for any reason in any
way related to the case. This includes operating systems,
applications, servers, even mice and keyboards. This includes all
aspects of the lives of those involved. Home computers, games and
game consoles, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum nauseumque. This
will do two things. It will not only remove the specter of ``what
will I do if all this disappears'' doubt from the minds of those
involved, but prove to them personally just how pervasive the
Microsoft monopoly is... and just how possible it is to break it, if
only we have the will.
The proposed settlement, so far as I can tell, has no punishment
for Microsoft, only prevention of further wrongdoing. I propose the
following very simple step: A complete, total, ten-year ban on using
Federal monies for the purchase of any Microsoft products, directly
or indirectly. Current software would be allowed to remain, but as
licenses expire or computers need upgrading, they would have to be
replaced with non-Microsoft products. You cannot both break
Microsoft's monopoly and pay them to maintain it. This would not
only remove any Federal conflict of interest completely, but have
the effect of forcing Microsoft to play fair with non-Microsoft
systems or be forced from the industry as people make the changes
necessary to make their own systems talk to non-Microsoft Federal
systems.
There are many flaws with the proposed settlement, but I believe
the addition of this one proviso, removing the conflict of interest
from the case, will effectively cure all its remaining ills, and
forever break the monopoly that today is Microsoft.
Glenn R. Stone
Linux Systems Engineer
working in Redmond, WA
MTC-00010613
From: Tanner lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 1:55pm
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing you today expressing my sincere belief that that no
further action on behalf of the federal government needs to be
[[Page 25327]]
taken
against Microsoft. This issue has held the leading innovator, as
well as the entire IT industry, is in a state of stagnancy for three
years now. It is time that the government let them get back to work.
For this reason, the settlement reached in November should be
implemented without further delay. It is quite clear that this
settlement is thorough and reasonable. The government wanted to
inhibit anti-competitive behavior and that is exactly what this
agreement does. Microsoft has agreed to allow its competitors access
in code and interfaces that internal are internal to Window
operating system products. Additionally, Microsoft has conceded
broad new rights to computers makers to ship non-Microsoft operating
systems, as well as the rights allowing them to configure Windows so
as to promote software applications that compete with Microsoft
products. There are many other provisions of this settlement, all of
which will be verified by a Technical Committee for compliance.
Under these conditions, it is fair to say that Microsoft's
competitors have a significant advantage, and more importantly, this
settlement satisfies the original goal of the government's lawsuit.
This settlement should be implemented immediately so as to allow
Microsoft to get back to producing innovative products and services.
This issue has been drawn on far too long, to the detriment of the
IT industry and the economy. It demands a resolution. Please
continue your hard work in this direction.
Sincerely,
Tanner Lewis
MTC-00010614
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
This is in response to the Microsoft Settlement. I'm
disappointed because the settlement will not lead to a competitive
business environment. It's clear that Microsoft has a monopoly. I
can't run my business without paying Microsoft. The problem with the
settlement is that it doesn't address the fact that Microsoft
already has a monopoly. To rectify this the settlement should
encourage more competition. The settlement makes a reasonable
attempt at fixing some obvious problems in how Microsoft interacts
with other companies and how they can modify or use Microsoft's
operating system, but there is a lot more to using an operating
system or writing applications for an operating system then setting
icons. Microsoft should have to make any changes to the operating
system available to the entire public long enough ahead of time of
implementing them that other companies can use the changes in a
competitive manner with Microsoft's other software products.
Another approach to ensuring competition would be to encourage a
competitive operating system for PCs. My biggest complaint with
Microsoft is that it has little to no competition. The consumer is
stuck with whatever Microsoft comes up with no matter how many
errors or worthless features are in it. If the Mac OS ran on PCs
then Microsoft would be pressured to fix some obvious problems. If
there were a company with enough capitol to build a simple interface
for Linux then Microsoft would have real competition. I would like
to see the settlement structured to have Microsoft pay for the
development of a competitive product, either Mac OS on a PC or a
simple Linux interface, then have Microsoft's operating system made
public.
Thank you,
Matthew Rosing
MTC-00010615
From: Frank Koch
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Koch
158 Terning Drive West Eureka, MT 59917 January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Microsoft
Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Frank Koch
MTC-00010616
From: Denise Rounds
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Denise Rounds
PO Box 480097
Charlotte, NC 28269
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Denise Rounds
MTC-00010617
From: James E. Osteen, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:29pm
Subject: Put an end to the Antitrust Case
Can you please save me and my fellow taxpayers a little money?
The last thing that we need now is for the DOJ to keep harassing
Microsoft. In my eyes, Microsoft's competitors are whinning, because
they cannot build a better product.
James Osteen
MTC-00010619
From: marina slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:48pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Judge KK;
As a long-time (and very discontented) Micosoft user, I find it
almost unbearable to think that I will be forced to continue to use
the MS operating systems-- and (gasp) MS applictions--indefinitely
into the future if the PFJ is approved as it now stands. Please help
bring at least a modicum of real competition to our country's PC
software industry. For all of us millions that use the PC everyday
to do a variety of tasks, how much nicer it would be to have truly
free choice in applications--and an Operating System that actually
worked without crashing. Clearly you can't do a lot about the
latter. But please do something about the former. Please don't allow
the 'bolting' provision of the PFJ to stand.
Sincerely yours.
Marina Slayton
Palo Alto, CA
MTC-00010620
From: marina slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
THAnk you Judge--for taking this case seriously. Please do not
let Microsoft have its way.
We need a competitive software industry in our country-not a MS
monopoly.
[[Page 25328]]
THanks,
MTC-00010621
From: G S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
GREETINGS JUDGE;
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK IN REVIEWING THE PFJ. AS A 10 YEAR
VETERAN OF THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY, MY READING OF THE PFJ TELLS ME
THAT IT IS DEFINITIVELY NOT IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST.
I HOPE YOU WILL SEND THE PFJ BACK TO JUSTICE AND ASK THEM TO
CORRECT AT LEAST THE MOST EGREGIOUS SECTIONS, IF NOT (PERHAPS BEST)
START AGAIN.
AFTER ALL, THREE COURTS HAVE ALL FOUND THAT MICROSOFT DIRECTLY
AND REPEATEDLY ABUSED ITS MONOPOLY POSITION (95% OF THE EFFECTIVE
MARKET FOR PC OPERATING SYSTEMS IN THE USA??). WHY SHOULD WE TRUST
THEM GOING FORWARD???
THANK YOU.
GWS
MTC-00010622
From: Barbara Bryant
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Bryant
PO Box 1344
Levelland, TX 79336
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
WHY DON'T YOU GO AFTER THE ``UTILITY/TELEPHONE MONOPOLIES IN
SMALL TOWNS?
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barbara Bryant
MTC-00010623
From: Anders Persson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hej
Microsoft position on the software market make them a monopoly
company. They thoroughly use it by adding not large differences to
standards but small once. Many companies in Sweden has abandon other
products like Netscape since they do not handle everything correctly
if a site has been developed by any MS product. Since a lot of
people use MS Word, MS Front Page in large companies they of course
produce there sites with those tools. Netscape handles them almost
correctly but since Microsoft has added some slight differences only
known internally of Microsoft it is only MS Internet Explorer that
has the possibility to handle the pages correctly.
They have tried the same with Java and there product Visual J++
that in some cases produced not standard Java code. So, Microsoft is
defacto, by its large market share, setting the standrad but not
telling anyone. A similar case is the openoffice.org tool that tries
to read MS Word formatet documents. I recently filed an issue about
a bug to oppenoffice.org. They did not handle some tables correctly
that was produced with a MS Word tool that a friend of mine use.
They looked at the binary format of the document and the reason was
that MS Word ignored in this specific case the carriage return that
was included in the table? Why did they ignore it? How should anyone
else than the developers at Microsoft be able to write products that
use information produced by other tools either by direct
communication or via files produced by Microsoft tools.
If a small company do like Microsoft noone will bother since it
often does not affect anybody. But since Microsoft totally dominate
the market everyone must follow what they do. If Microsoft decide
that they need a new product in a certain area the just take it
since they can easily create a new product that is better integrated
with all other Microsoft tools than any other vendor can do.
The only possible solution is to devide MS into a lot of smaller
companies.
Regards
Anders Persson
MTC-00010624
From: Don Running
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
MTC-00010624-0001
805 Harrison Street
Wakefield, MI 49968-1043
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-000
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
We are huge supporters of Microsoft. We have long been impressed
by the company's ability to produce user-friendly products.
Microsoft has their hand on the pulse of the consumer's needs. This
is the secret behind Microsoft's ability to innovate. We want to
voice our support for the settlement. This settlement is fair. It is
reasonable. It contains many terms that will ensure anti-competitive
behavior in the future. The largest of these terms is the disclosure
of the internal interface. Competitors will now be able to access
the design of the Windows system. This will put competitors at an
increased advantage.
Microsoft is a great company. It has helped te technology
industry immensely. The settlement will allow them get back to what
they do best. Enact the settlement.
Thank you.
Sincere regards,
Donald R. and Margaret A. Running
MTC-00010624-0002
MTC-00010625
From: Gayle Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4119 North Simpson Road
Otis Orchards, WA 99027-8721
January 12, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I am
outraged about the amount of money and time that has been devoted
it. This case should not have been brought in the first place. I am
even more outraged by the handling of the case by the judiciary. I
believe firmly that the government should simply drop the case
against Microsoft, however, as the likelihood of this happening is
slim, I support Microsoft's agreement to comply with the terms of
the settlement agreement in the interest of ending this costly,
wasteful, unwarranted, and needless litigation.
The terms of the settlement are more, considerably more, than
fair, just, and reasonable. Microsoft has gone far above and well
beyond what should be expected of it. Microsoft has agreed to
disclose to its very competitors the interfaces that are internal to
its proprietary Windows Operating System. Similarly, Microsoft
agreed to not enter into contracts with third parties that would
require that third party to exclusively promote or distribute
Microsoft products. There should be no hesitation in accepting these
terms; no hesitation on the part of the Department of Justice; and,
no hesitation on the part of the Court. A nation that hesitates in
times of crisis is lost. And our nation is facing a crisis.
I believe firmly that this case was brought as a result of the
government's ongoing pattern of interfering with successful American
businesses. Innovative companies, like Microsoft, should be free to
further their businesses. When innovative American companies are
allowed to freely innovate, American businesses, American consumers,
and the American economy in general, will benefit.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and,
please, let our nation move forward.
[[Page 25329]]
Sincerely yours,
Gayle E. Green
We do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet
inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and
momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far
outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on
what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is
eternal.
II Cor. 4:16-18
MTC-00010626
From: Mike Duetting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5756 Spruce Knoll Court
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(317) 255-4806
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my full support of the recent antitrust
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. The
case has dragged on long enough and I believe the settlement is fair
and in the best interests of the America public. There are two
things I completely agree with in the terms of settlement and think
will be good for the IT Industry. First, the increased relations
between Microsoft and computer makers and software developers will
allow knowledge sharing, which is unprecedented in this industry and
should promote higher growth rates. Second, designing future Windows
versions so that computer makers, software developers, and consumers
can more easily promote non-Microsoft products is a welcome
adjustment to the current format.
But, for the IT Industry and economy to rebound this matter has
to be settled as soon as possible and that will only happen when the
nine states in opposition drop their lawsuits. I believe they should
be scolded for their actions and I disagree fully with their
intents.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Duetting
MTC-00010627
From: m C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:11pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DEAR JUDGE; WHEN REVIEWING THE PFJ, PLEASE THINK OF WHERE OUR
NATION WOULD BE WITH ONLY ONE OIL COMPANY (STANDARD OIL) OR WITH
ONLY ONE RAILROAD CORPORATION... MONOPOLIES ARE INHERENTLY BAD FOR
OUR INDUSTRY, OUR ECONOMY AND OUR NATION. AND I DON'T THINK THAT
ANYONE LOOKING SERIOUSLY AT THE NUMBERS WOULD ARGUE THAT MS DOESN'T
AT LEAST HAVE A DEFACTO MONOPOLY IN OUR INDUSTRY.
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN MS HAS ABUSED ITS MONOPOLY POSITION TO
PUT ITS COMPETITORS OUT OF BUSINESS. AND NOW THE GOV'T WANTS TO
TRUST MS NOT TO DO IT AGAIN (WHICH IS HOW I READ THE PFJ).
THAT IS RIDICULOUS...AND IT WILL BE A SERIOUS BLOW TO THE
AMERICAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY.
PLEASE TAKE A COURAGEOUS STAND FOR FREE MARKETS. PLEASE STAND
AGAINST THE MICROSOFT MONOPOLY.
THANK YOU.
MARIAN CHILDS
TOLEDO, OHIO
MTC-00010628
From: Stephane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The american DOJ is the only authority that can do anything
against the unfair market strategy of Microsoft corporation. And it
may do so because, for its own interests, breaking such a monopoly
would benefit the USA's state.
1-Microsoft's monopoly keeps the new economy fragile and weak.
What would happen in case of Ms' crash ? The main industrial network
in IT would be thrown to ground. Do you think people would like not
to upgrade windows computers during 10 years because MS is dead ? Do
you remember that anti trust laws were established after 1929 and
why ?
2-This monopoly costs to the us society. The illegal and
nonsense raises in software (that became necessary for most users
and enterprises) involves a real robery of the american society. The
states are stolen, as their people are, when they spend million
dollars just because the have to buy an up-to-date system (even if
up-to-date just means more beautifull and newly marketed).
3-From a computer security point of vue, having only one large
scaled operating system (that can't be customized or modified in any
way) is the MAIN factor that explains why viruses and security holes
spread so quickly in the net. More diversity would carry more immune
to the net and the american economy as well.
4-No more innovation, what a pity for such a new field :
creating Operating Systems for people.... Microsoft is simply
leveling down the computer science as many will tell you. Even their
``innovations'' are not innovations because they are not shared and
this just becomes a market advantage to strengthen Ms and weaken the
technology abitiliy to change and evolve. American founder thought
it would not become another oligarchy ...
What an amazing idea to see that justice is feared to break
someone who concentrates so much power in a democraty...
MTC-00010629
From: ELHoffmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Since technology changes and evolves so quickly these days, it
is impossible that a monopoly can exist.
Every company has an equal opportunity to achieve success and
Microsoft should not be punished for accomplishing the highest level
of success. Over the past ten years, growth of Microsoft has fueled
the
US economy. As a result of litigating Microsoft, this source of
``fuel'' has been cut short. Thus it is important to end litigation
as soon as possible.
The settlement offers the best solutions to the problem and
serves the best interest of the people. We should not continue to
weaken our US companies and while risking the chance of another
foreign entity take advantage of the software market. There are
already several non US companies developing products that will
provide very strong competition for Microsoft. Microsoft should be
left alone so that they can continue to develop new cost effective
products and stay ahead of these foreign competitors. I am very
concerned about the large legal bills being forced on Microsoft to
defend themselves against this unwarranted litigation. In past years
many other US companies had an equal opportunity to develop
competitive software but have not been successful simply because
what Microsoft has provided has been better and cheaper. I know
because I have used much of that software and am very familiar with
the cost and functionality.
After more than three years of litigation, it is about time that
a settlement was reached. The current agreement ensures that other
US competitors have an opportunity to be promoted the same amount as
Microsoft. Provided in future Windows programs will be a mechanism
that enables all users to easily reconfigure Windows to endorse
software programs that are competitive with Microsoft products. In
doing this, Microsoft consented to document and disclose necessary
interfaces to the competition in order to advocate software
compatibility. In addition, Microsoft has agreed to the
establishment of a Technical committee. These software engineer
experts will monitor Microsoft's business practices and will report
any violations of the settlement.
Due to the excessive length of this case, it is necessary to end
litigation immediately as it is not beneficial to the parties
involved or to the US citizens. I believe the justice department has
many more important items on its agenda. This country can not afford
additional terrorism so that is where the justice department should
be putting these resources (to better use in protect the people of
the United States).
Thank you considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Leon Hoffmann
MTC-00010630
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ should allow Microsoft to press on in competitive ways
and to innovate. Surely some compromise can be reached. If not
computers and software for schools, how about software for
government entities?
Shelley S. Gordon, Ph.D.
2444 West Oak St. #228
Denton TX 76201
[email protected]
[[Page 25330]]
MTC-00010631
From: tjsimon124
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Department of Justice:
It is high time that this case be closed and allow Microsoft to
continue their innovative proccess's in developing new, improved,
and affordable software programs that benefits individual consumers,
the software industry, and the American Economy. Please stop
spending taxpayers dollars on this case and devote your efforts to
other more important matters that affect all Americans.
If the few special interests individuals would spend the
resources in improving their software products instead of
litigation, maybe they too could improve the efficiency of their
products.
THOMAS J. SIMON
Concerned consumer
MTC-00010632
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is just unbelievable that a company such as Microsoft is
penalized for being successful. Enough already! I have yet to find
ANYONE who has been ``hurt'' by what ever Microsoft has been accused
of. The real villain in this circus are the competitors of Microsoft
who just cannot compete or will not compete without government
intervention. If you cannot compete in a certain market, then you
probably are IN the wrong market. This is what a true ``open
market'' is. Microsoft is being penalized for following the American
Way. A successful company that has indeed improved my way of life
and millions of others. Let's face it. The states that are involved
are only looking for another ``cash cow'' to fill their coffers. To
drain Microsoft of legally earned revenue, an amount that Microsoft
will have to pay, but like any other prudent company, would pass the
cost back to the consumer by raising the price of its product, thus
basically becoming a ``hidden tax'' upon the American people.
The Department of Justice must end this trampling on the spirit
of what is America, an open market, the freedom of commerce, the
right to be successful without penalty.
Lou G. Kush
27810 49th Ave S
Auburn WA 98001-1913
United States of America
(253) 859-3004
e:mail: [email protected]
MTC-00010633
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I should like to record my view that the Microsoft settlement
recently agreed upon is fair and reasonable, and in the public
interest, and it would be very much against the public interest to
reopen the case at this time, after already protracted litigation.
Very truly yours,
William J. Williams
MTC-00010634
From: Richard Iverson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
8468 W McRae Way
Peoria, Arizona 85382
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The federal government has no place telling people how to run
their business or punishing them for being successful when they do
it right. Microsoft is being punished for simply being too
successful. I hope that this settlement means that both Microsoft
and the government can move onto more important issues.
This settlement will make it easier for companies to design
their products for use in Windows by requiring Microsoft to give
them information about how Windows operates internally. If they
don't feel that Microsoft is complying, they are allowed to take
them back to court. I feel that this is more than enough to handle
all of the original complaints that were brought against Microsoft
in the first place.
Please let this settlement stand and let this whole mess finally
be over and done with. Thank you for hearing me out in this matter
and I look forward to hearing the result of this case after the
comment period has ended.
Sincerely,
Richard Iverson
MTC-00010635
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This letter is intended to express my concern regarding the
continued delay in the settlement of the Microsoft case. This matter
has been the object of years of litigation, constant controversy and
continuous delay. All the while, one of the nation's most dynamic
corporations has been hamstrung in a manner detrimental to the whole
IT industry and our national economy. It's time to end this
controversy and get Microsoft back to work.
The proposed settlement will satisfy the concerns of the
government and remedy the grievances of Microsoft's competitors. The
company will be constrained to open up its Windows systems to non-
Microsoft software
and computer manufacturers. There will be a Washington appointed
oversight committee to monitor the company's compliance. In short
the fears of Microsoft's competitors are no longer justified.
This case is now no more than a political football, and treating
it as such is detrimental to this country and our economy. Please
finalize this settlement.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Kirby
9411 Brookview Drive
Brentwood, TN 37027
MTC-00010636
From: Julia Stemper
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Julia Stemper
1830 E. Parks Hwy. #639
Wasilla, AK 99654
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Julia Stemper
MTC-00010637
1437 Darthmouth Street
Scranton, PA 18504-2122
(570)342-0590
January 8,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am happy to see that a settlement has occurred between
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice in the antitrust case,
but extremely upset with the nine states continuing their lawsuits.
Microsoft should not be broken up and most of the concessions they
are being forced to make are ridiculous. I am currently studying for
a degree in Business Information and have worked in numerous
internships in the IT sector. As a student, and constituent of IT
businesses, I think Microsoft is being wrongly forced to disclose
their technology that they have
[[Page 25331]]
worked long and hard to develop. I
will say that Microsoft has done wonders for our technology
educational systems and should be applauded for how they have helped
our economy.
The terms of the settlement have some just points such as
forming three-person team to monitor compliance with settlement and
increasing relations with competitors to share technological codes
and interfaces.
I hope that the Department of Justice helps to suppress state
opposition and works to free up Microsoft so that they can focus on
regaining the growth they had over 3 years ago.
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Arlen Spector
Sincerely,
Mark Gowarty
From: Mark Gowarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached are my feelings on the Microsoft Settlement. Please see
that they are read and reflected upon.
Thank You
Mark Gowarty
CC:Microsoft Freedom to Innovate
MTC-00010638
From: Don (038) Susie Meador
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
MabelDonald A. Meador
20482 Townline Rd.
Lanark, Ilinois 61046
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to take a moment to comment on the settlement between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice that was reached late last
year. The settlement is definitely in the public's interest and is a
fair deal for both sides of the dispute. From every indication I
have seen, the agreement is strong and requires many changes to be
implemented by Microsoft.
As an example, Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of
Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers,
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software
within Windows. This will in turn give consumers the freedom to
choose to change their computer's configuration at any time. Also,
Microsoft will be monitored under the agreement by a Technical
Committee to ensure they are meeting their obligations.
I believe Microsoft has done a world of good for this country.
Their products are extremely important to this country, whether
small businesses or individuals in their home use them. I hope you
continue to support the settlement and take no further action.
Sincerely,
Donald Meador
MTC-00010639
From: fstapel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs;
You may add my name to the list of people who are dissatisfied
with the proposed settlement suggested by the Microsoft Corporation.
I believe that giving poor school districts refurbished PCs and
software, will only end up adding to the monopoly that they now
enjoy. It will also impoverish the already under funded schools, in
maintenance of these reworked machines plus the continual cost of
updating them, and upgrading the software. It seems a very clever
ploy to get more schools locked in to the ``Microsoft Way'', which
has already proven to be expensive to businesses and the private
sector alike. I believe Microsoft needs to forfeit a stiff fine, and
have this granted to these schools, with the choice of Operating
Systems, Windows, Macintosh, Linux or whatever.
Thank you for taking time to read this.
sincerely.
Frank Stapel
106 Develin Drive,
Phoenixville, PA 19460
[email protected]
MTC-00010640
From: Otto Ammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:28pm
Subject: antitrust
bravo microsoft!!!!!!!!!!!!Why doesn't the gov. keep its nose
where it belongs.
Not in pvt industry.
O.J. AMMER
300s. stonebase rd.
New Wilmnigton Pa. 16142
MTC-00010641
From: Steve Skipper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:30pm
Subject: Settlement agreement
To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Washington I am amused at the different states'
AG's as they attack Microsoft. Even though our AG was a lead
litigator in the tobacco suit(we grow no tobacco in WA), I notice
our AG is not part of this action, but many of the other AG's have
competitors to Microsoft headquartered in their states. This appears
to be a legal shakedown, because many of them were happy if
Microsoft dumped money into their state in exchange for settling.
(If it were truly an anti-trust case, none of these pursuers would
let Microsoft buy them off.) Is this the American way? I hope not.
I would like to mention just one little piece of testimony in
the government's case against Microsoft. Ralph Nader in his
testimony mentioned that they were so upset with Microsoft's
business tactics that they did not use any Microsoft products in
their office. I think that says it all. Microsoft is not the only
game in town.
I would also like to refer back to another case not so long ago,
very similar to this one.
Remember when the government claimed that no one would ever be able
to compete against IBM, because they controlled so much of the
market. A suit that lasted some 13 years was for naught. IBM is even
throwing in the towel on trying to compete in the desktop business
and it had nothing to do with the government making a level playing
field. What was the purpose of the suit? Are we going to make the
same mistakes with Microsoft?
The free enterprise system is not perfect, but I think if we
look at history, it turns out to be the most efficient and gives
competitors the best opportunity to become the new industry giant.
If Microsoft is willing to settle under the terms now proposed,
let's do it.
Steve Skipper,
Not affiliated with, own no interest in, not an advocate for or
not paid by Microsoft
MTC-00010642
From: Tammy Stambaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Attorney General Ascroft,
I'm writing to ask you to accept the proposed settlement by the
Department of Justice, Microsoft and nine of eighteen states which
will stop wasting taxpayer's money on the decade-long competitor-
driven persecution of Microsoft.
I ask that the Federal District Court determine that the
proposed settlement is in the public's interest and end the waste of
our money on this case. Please settle it, and be done with it.
Thank you,
Tammy Stambaugh
MTC-00010643
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of
[[Page 25332]]
1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Janell Hope
11805 Meridian Pl. NE
Lake Stevens, Wa. 98258
[email protected]
MTC-00010644
From: Pete Carapetyan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your honor:
Please do not allow our country to be bush-wacked by Microsoft,
who uses not one but every available tactic to maintain their
control over the marketplace.
By making technology appear much more complex than it really is,
and then using that as a shell game to outwit the court system,
Microsoft makes a sham out of our laws, and a mockery of what has
allowed technology to move forward.
Please do not allow the court to be duped by this very clever
group. You do not have to be a technical genius to see when you are
being snookered.
Pete Carapetyan
http://datafundamentals.com
Java Development Services
Open standards technology for commercial profitability
MTC-00010645
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 4:40pm
Subject' Attached word file
Steve Marsel Studio, Inc.
215 First Street
Cambridge, MA.
02142
[email protected]
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
After three long years of litigation between Microsoft and the
Justice Department, I was excited to hear that a settlement had been
reached.
The agreement reached required extensive negotiations and is
extremely comprehensive. The agreement requires many concessions
from Microsoft that show the government got strong deal in this
matter. For example, Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any
agreement obligating any third party to distribute or promote any
Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject to
certain narrow exceptions where no competitive concern is present.
Also, any violations of the settlement could bring a contempt of
court charge against Microsoft. The settlement is also a good
development for consumers. Besides benefiting the economy, Microsoft
will now be able to focus their resources on developing the next
generation of products consumers have come to expect. Therefore, I
hope your support of the settlement remains strong and this entire
affair can be put behind everyone.
Sincerely,
Steve Marsel
MTC-00010646
From: Charlene Higgins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlene Higgins
504 N. Cottage
Miles City, MT 59301
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charlene Higgins
MTC-00010647
From: alvin j pohl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 5:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAWSUIT
12380 Drayton Drive
Spring Hill, FL 34609-4034
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 10, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
It has come to my attention that there has been a settlement
reached in the Justice Department's case against Microsoft. I would
you like to know that I support the settlement, which has been
reached by the parties involved.
However, I believe that the case was a waste of the court's time
to begin with. There was no need to bring legal action against
Microsoft, because they did not commit any crime. They are just a
successful company who develop excellent products. I think the terms
of the settlement are more than fair and reasonable for the
government to accept. For instance, Microsoft has agreed to license
its Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer
makers on identical terms and conditions, including price.
Also, I would like to remind you that there will be a three
person technical committee established to make sure Microsoft is
complying with the settlement, and to aid in the dispute resolution
process. Furthermore, the continued pursuit of legal action against
them would just be a waste of time and money. I ask that the Justice
Department terminate its efforts to prosecute Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Alvin Pohl
MTC-00010648
From: Gerald Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 5:13pm
[[Page 25333]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir,
I belive that a favorable Microsoft settlement is in the
interest of consumers and the public in general. Microsoft products
have continually improved and have provided inexpensive software to
the average family at a reasonable cost. I would have bought from
their competitors if their product was as good.
Gerald G. Thomas
MTC-00010649
From: Don Kovacs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 5:18pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft settlement
ATTN: Renata B.Hesse
BOGUS
The DOJ, Microsoft and nine (9) attorneys-general have reached a
satisfactory conclusion in this case against Microsoft. This case
should be concluded as over and those states that do not wish to
partake in the settlement should get NOTHING, including Connecticut,
which I am a resident of ( my attorney-general Blumenthal has a
tendency to grandstand). Enough already. Microsoft makes a product
and generates jobs, pays taxes and provides social responsibility to
schools, etc. Government, takes from citizens and is supported by my
taxes. End this case NOW!!!
Respectfully
Don Kovacs
16 Elaine St.
Norwalk, CT 06850
(203) 866-9671
MTC-00010650
From: Muneer Qaid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
First let me start with this funny thing...i'm writing to you
this email using Microsoft techonology(Hotmail) itselt but opposing
Microsoft' way in business.
Yes, i think Microsoft should give some space for other
companies to work and make money. Apparantly that was not the goal
of Microsoft in the past years. I do encourage Microsoft innovation
and hard work but it SHOULD NOT target its work at harming/
destorying or taking ideas of others and plug them into MS Operating
Systems.
I think Bill Gates had made enough money to keep him and all his
grandsons extremely rich for sooooo long. Give it a break Bill
Gates.
Regards,
Muneer
MTC-00010651
From: Kay Lidington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I live in the UK. Many people are concerned over abuse of a
dominant position by Microsoft. The media is full of stories of
abuse of a dominant market position by the firm. It probably needs
to be reined in, but break-up of the entereprise is in the interests
of no-one. Whether or not you like the firm, they have single-
handedly advanced information technology to levels that even a
couple of years ago were beyond the wildest dreams of most people
across the world.
If you wish to rein them in, many people will consider this
appropriate. If you wish to break them up, you will do more damage
to the civilised world than Osama bin Laden could even imagine.
As a patriotic UK national, I wish a UK firm had the expertise
that Microsoft consistently show. As a member of the civilised
`Western' community, I expect you to consider where we would be
without this firm.
For the record, I use an outdated version of ``Windows''
(Windows '95)because newer versions would leave smaller business
like mine, that rely on older Windows-dependent programs, unable to
run these `old' programs without spending money we do not have.
I have no love for Microsoft, but be realistic--it is the only
firm able to advance computer applications at a pace required by
businesses worldwide.
K Lidington,
MILT, MInstTA (UK)
MTC-00010652
From: George Salisbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 5:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I find the persecution of Microsoft an abomination of free
enterprise. Microsofts bundling of their products is a procedure
that has been followed by many manufacturers since day one. But the
idea that a man like Bill Gates can utilize the system and become
the richest man in the world causes our current socialist government
fits. This is totally un-American. You are supposed to be free to be
all you can be in this country. Apparently, not!
Totally disgusted,
George Salisbury
6018 E. Gillette Rd.
Cicero, NY 13039
MTC-00010653
From: Stella Canfield
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stella Canfield
111 E.Evans Rd.
Wapato, Wa 98951
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally
breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Stella Canfield
MTC-00010654
From: Glenda R. Snodgrass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 6:06pm
Subject: Proposed settlement of Microsoft anti-trust case should be
REJECTED
With regard to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case, may I respectfully state that I believe the proposed
settlement should not be approved. Primary faults with this proposed
settlement include:
1--No punishment. In spite of the fact that Microsoft has been
judged to be a monopoly, which is a violation of U.S. anti-trust
law, the proposed settlement does not punish Microsoft in any
meaningful way, nor does it grant any meaningful relief either to
consumers or to companies such as Apple, Sun and Netscape which were
found to have suffered due to Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
Microsoft will continue to enjoy the many fruits of its prior
illegal activities.
2--No relief. The proposed settlement will not require Microsoft
to change its normal way of doing business in any meaningful way.
Consumers will still be forced to buy Microsoft software, at least
the operating system, with every new PC purchase. (If you don't
believe this is true, pick up the telephone right now and call
Compaq or IBM and try to order a new PC with no operating system
installed. They will not sell you one.)
3--No disclosure. A fair settlement must require Microsoft to
reveal the secrets of its file formats to the extent that third-
party software companies may create competitive products able to
read documents created by Microsoft software and which will interact
with Microsoft operating systems as well as Microsoft's own products
do. The existence of the Microsoft monopoly over recent years has
resulted in the creation of millions of documents in Microsoft-
specific file formats; until these documents can be properly used by
other software products, the monopoly will not be broken. The
current proposed settlement does not provide for such necessary
disclosure.
4--No protection. Likewise, the proposed settlement does not
provide for adequate disclosure of network protocols like .NET,
which Microsoft plans to use to completely dominate the Internet.
Until and unless these protocols are regulated by an independent
third party and fully disclosed, only software developers using
Microsoft development
[[Page 25334]]
tools on Microsoft platforms will be able to
fully implement the technology.
5--No security. It is crucial for national security interests
that the Microsoft monopoly be halted, firmly, in its tracks. Just
as a gene pool must be diverse to survive, the communication
infrastructure of this country must have a diverse base to withstand
attacks. It is a well-known fact in technical circles that the
Microsoft operating systems have myriad serious security holes,
making its ubiquity an even greater liability. More secure systems
cannot penetrate the market, to diversify the national
infrastructure and provide security through complexity, until the
Microsoft monopoly has been broken.
The proposed settlement will not break the stranglehold of the
Microsoft monopoly, and thus should be rejected.
Glenda R. Snodgrass
Post Office Box 885
Mobile, Alabama 36601
MTC-00010655
From: Philip Haddad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 6:11pm
Subject: Mircosoft
As a taxpaying citizen I'm demanding that the crusade against
Mircosoft stop. Trial layers make loads of money in these cases.
However, it sets a bad legal predent and is paid with by taxes.
Sincerely,
Philip Haddad
MTC-00010656
From: Peter Menchini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consultant who works in the technology field, I am strongly
opposed to the way the government has been handling this case of
late. Microsoft, as a matter of course, uses it's monopoly position
to carry out the most outrageous anticompetitive practices.
Indeed, they are the very picture of arrogance. They stifle
innovation at every turn, even as they take credit for other
peoples' initiatives. Their complete lack of concern for software
security for instance, has cost companies thousands of dollars in
lost revenue.
I urge the Department of Justice to stop helping Microsoft
achieve dominance in school systems, and instead deliver the most
severe punishments allowed by law.
While I prefer a break up of Microsoft, I understand this may
not now be possible. In any case, I would think the government would
look at how much money Microsoft really has, and ask for both
compensatory and punitive damages based on the billions they've cost
not only consumers, but State, Federal and local governments as
well. This should be calculated to include the loss of jobs at
other, competing firms as Microsoft's threats have forced
corporations to dump other viable technologies or suffer the wrath
of Redmond.
These things are all well documented, and Microsoft has made it
clear that they are both unrepentant and unbowed. Even today, they
continue their efforts to dominate at all costs, even if it means
that America falls behind in cutting edge technology.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Peter Menchini
Citizen of the United States of America
MTC-00010657
From: Millie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 6:43pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
My opinion and comments: Microsoft should get off the hook? four
years is enough? If another company has a better operating system?
they should show it and the world will buy it instead of XP. My
County and my City has computers and training in every Library Thanx
to Bill Gates. Their Software is reasonably priced? litigation is
never reasonable in cost. Let's settle it now?
Charles Murrell,
Redding California.
My brother, Charles Murrell, wrote the above; we are in
agreement with his opinion and want you to know.
George A. & Millie L. Berlemeier
14 Bruno Ct.
El Sobrante, CA 94803-3238
(510) 223-3694
MTC-00010658
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to have the Microsoft case settled. I do not think
we are gaining anything by prolonging and dragging it out.
MTC-00010659
From: west goewey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 7:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
get it over with . . . tired of my tax dollars being wasted on
this law suit. lets get the economy rolling . . . the only ones that
win in a law suit are the lawyers!! let the buyer worry about what
operating system to buy!! the settlement looks good to this
consumer.
west goewey
MTC-00010660
From: Pat and Bob Goodpaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 7:39pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft settlement
From: Pat and Bob Goodpaster
To: mailto:Renata B. Hesse @[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft's generous offer should be accepted.Enough is enough.
Let's get this closed and let this progressive organization help
move our great country forward.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Goodpaster
1648 Elliott Ave.
Ashland, Kentucky
MTC-00010661
From: RickWRoberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft continues to develop business strategies which have a
direct effect on the consumer and developer communities. One of the
objectives of these strategies is always to impede other companies
from developing technologies which might interfere with Microsoft's
goals. Examples: Netscape Navigator and Java Technology. Even after
the Antitrust suit was filed, Microsoft continues to try make it
harder for other companies to develop their technologies. Example:
Microsoft .Net strategy. And Microsoft says look at all the great
things we have accomplished. But, much more could have been
accomplished if Microsoft wasn't always trying to inhibit other
companies abilities to compete in a fair market. I will only support
a settlement which does not allow Microsoft to continue to bend the
laws to suit there strategies.
Rick W. Roberts
Independent Software Developer
MTC-00010662
From: Kevin Poulsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
It has come to my attention, through BeOS channels, that you are
accepting proposed remedies to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior
as a monopoly.
To the point:
1. Microsoft should be limited from placing ANY restrictions on
resellers. This includes, but is not limited to resellers selling
individual copies of software, major/minor computer manufacturers
who bundle MS software with their systems, VARs who may give
discounts for bulk orders on MS products, etc.
2. Microsoft should be required to publish a price list with all
available discounts. Anyone who meets requirements for fair
discounts (based on volume, etc.) can get the discounts without any
strings attached. Also, end-users should be allowed to upgrade
whenever they see fit, instead of being forced into ``subscription
services''.
3. Microsoft NEEDS to be broken into at least 3, preferabley 4,
independant companies (Mini Micros) using the AT&T breakup as a
model. I strongly think we need 2 operating system companies and 2
application companies. Tied to this, COMPLETE OS APIs need to be
published to any application/OS manufacturer that requests them.
4. Monetary damages at a staggeringly high number--sufficient to
be considered by Microsoft as incentive for avoiding anti-
competitive practice in the future. These monies could be placed in
a trust fund for a number of years. Anyone who can prove damages,
can be paid from this trust fund.
Now, my thoughts on each item:
1. There have been numerous operating systems that could have
fared well if it wasn't for Microsoft's heavy hand behind the scenes
of computer manufacturers. Examples include OS/2, Dr DOS, many DOS
variants, Linux, Unix, and, most recently, the BeOS. I remember when
OS/2 came out. I was a student at the time and I saw the two OSs
side-by-side in the University computer
[[Page 25335]]
store. OS/2 looked
impressive, but it faded away quickly. I wonder why? I have had a
strong interest in the BeOS for about 5 years. I heard that the BeOS
was shipping as a dual-boot on some HP computers. I later found out
that the computers did ship with the BeOS installed, but that
Microsoft prevented HP from adding the BeOS to their boot manager
and would not let them use a third-party boot manager. This severely
effected the commercial viability of the BeOS. Computer
manufacturers and software distributors should be able to compete on
a level playing ground. Microsoft has no place dictating unfair
distributor restrictions.
2. Microsoft has frequently played favorites and punished
distributors who don't agree to Microsoft's whims (selling OS/2,
selling linux, etc). Microsoft should not be allowed to ``punish''
ANY software distributors. There are valid reasons for giving
discounts.. specifically volume. Changing the wholesale price on
Microsoft products for ``preferred'' or ``black-listed'' vendors is
unfair practice. In addition, Microsoft recently initiated a
``subscription'' policy. Instead of allowing end-users to upgrade
when they feel it is appropriate (e.g., when Microsoft provides a
decent upgrade product), Microsoft now requires that companies use a
``subscription service'' for upgrades. This is a clear coercion that
would be unnecessary if Microsoft provided a product that was worth
the upgrade. End users should be able to indicate approval by
upgrading whenever they want.
3. BeWINE is an effort to allow Windows applications to run on
the BeOS. WINE also allows Windows applications to run on Linux and
X. ( http:// bewine.loungenet.org/ and http://www.winehq.com/ ) I
would like to see this project succeed, as well as others like it.
But, they need ALL of the OS APIs. Breaking Microsoft into 2
companies, one with the OS and the other with applications, simply
will NOT provide the open information that is needed. I think it is
more important to break Microsoft into 2 OS companies. This is the
ONLY way that all the OS APIs will be made public.
4. Microsoft has inflicted amazing monetary damage on
competitors as well as on it's customers. If a company (Microsoft)
produces a quality product at a fair price, then I don't mind if
they make a healthy profit. Microsoft not only has NOT provided a
quality product, they know that they can charge outrageous prices as
long as they have control. Microsoft's value will undoubtably
increase if it is broken up (just look at AT&T and the baby bells).
Microsoft's effort to avoid a breakup is clearly so that they can
maintain control. Microsoft has to be fined punitive damages
relative to it's size. This is the only way to give them a
sufficient incentive to compete fairly.
Some additional commentary:
First, my background. I was a network administrator for 5 years
working primarily with Windows NT 4.0. Mind you, I wouldn't mind
working with Microsoft products if they actually worked the way they
should and were priced according to what they are worth.
Windows has traditionally been a very unstable and low
performance OS. Microsoft puts effort into ``features'' that will
get customers. But they routinely include ``bugs'' that are
``fixed'' in the next version to entice upgrades. Once blatant
example is USB support for Windows NT 4.0. This is not difficult to
provide. In fact, I've heard of 3 third-party programmers who had
plans to offer it, since Microsoft hasn't included it in any of
their 7 service packs. Coincidentally, none of those companies have
brought it to market. I know (but can't prove) that Microsoft killed
any efforts to offer USB support for Windows NT 4.0 so that users
would have to upgrade to Windows 2000.
I've seen many confusing pricing schemes that are designed
specifically to drain money from customers. Sometimes, these schemes
include charges for no product. In particular, they charge a fee for
every computer that accesses a server. They have started a
``subscription service'' that is effectively the only way to get
product upgrades without spending a fortune on ``new product''
prices for upgrades. We also know that Microsoft charged twice the
profitable price for Windows 95.
I became aware of the BeOS about 5 years ago. I watched in
anticipation as newer versions came out and as it got great reviews.
Finally, with version 4, I thought it was good enough to give it a
try. It worked great (and still works great) on my P200. I've since
upgraded to 5.0 and I am writing this e-mail using Mail-It on the
BeOS. I still use Mail-It for my everyday personal e-mail. There are
several sample programs that ship with the BeOS. I eagerly opened 11
of them, including a flight simulator, a Mandelbrot set generator, a
spinning Open-GL teapot, a couple of videos, games and a starfield
simulation. With all eleven of these applications open and running,
some of them slowed slightly, but the equivalent of the Windows
Start menu didn't even hesitate when I clicked on it. I bought stock
in Be Inc. about the time that it was fluctuating wildly. This was
poised to be a great OS. It was almost purchased by Apple. Then, as
I later learned, HP (I think) delivered several computers with the
BeOS installed. They were supposed to be dual-boot, but Microsoft
nixed the dual boot, essentially making the BeOS inaccessible. That,
among other things, killed the BeOS. The BeOS was then sold to Palm
for 11 million--a mere fraction of it's asking price for Apple. I am
hoping that Palm will license to Be United so that we can revive
this great OS.
(Please note that my e-mail address will be changing from
[email protected] to [email protected] in the near future, in case
you want to contact me.)
MTC-00010663
From: Dean Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Johnson
2411 Skyline Way #106
Anacortes, wa 98221
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dean Johnson
MTC-00010664
From: Joyce A. Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12332 Ridge Cove Circle
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have become increasingly concerned by the outcome of the
antitrust suit brought against Microsoft by the U.S. Department of
Justice. Even though I feel that Microsoft should never have been
brought to trial, I am satisfied with the terms agreed to in the
settlement that was reached. I support the terms of the agreement,
which include increased information sharing and non-retaliation
clauses.
Unfortunately, nine other states, along with Microsoft's
competitors are seeking to overthrow the decision before it becomes
permanent and to impose even further regulations of the company than
it has already submitted to. This is ridiculous. The Department of
Justice has better things to do with its time and money than to
haggle endlessly over already resolved issues. It is in the best
interests of the Justice Department, and indeed the American people,
to let the lawsuit stand as it has been resolved.
I support the terms of settlement as they are. There is no need
for further debate. I hope this letter will help persuade you that
the settlement needs no further amendment. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joyce Reynolds
[[Page 25336]]
MTC-00010665
From: millers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:19pm
Please we have had enough. Most people are sick of the
government waste in pursueing Microsoft. Let it go more harm than
good is being done. We need less government intervention not more or
as in this case prolonged waste of court time and money.
Thank you
David G Miller
[email protected]
MTC-00010666
From: Fred Grott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
The proposed settlement does not settle any specific points
within the anti-trust judgment.
Question: How much of embarrassment for the US DOJ would it be
if the settlement in Europe under their laws succeeds to redress
Microsoft's Monopolistic practices where the US DOJ fails in
obligation to the US Public's trust?
No matter what settlement is implemented, remember this . . .
Worldwide computer users, software developers, hardware vendors,
software vendors, and etc will remember where you failed and some of
us happen to vote upon those lines in the next round of up coming
elections in the US.
Fred Grott
[email protected]
MTC-00010667
From: Professor Time
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have written on this antitrust case many times over the past
few months. Now that the government seems to be doing what is in the
best interest of the consumers, I feel that any attempt to
``derail'' this settlement is just another example of bureaucratic
overspending.
Let us put an end to this nonsense and go back to being truly
competitive. Agressiveness is not always a dirty word. Sometimes it
is just another way of saying ``Yankee Trading''.
Thank you.
W. Craig Westlake.
MTC-00010668
From: Alfred E Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
The Microseoft settlement is fair. Please stand by it!.
Thank you.
Al Johnson
MTC-00010669
From: Bill Loytty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:47pm
Subject: One vote for accepting the proposed settlement.
Dear staffer who tallies these things:
Please add one vote to the ``accept the settlement and get on
with it'' pile.
MTC-00010670
From: Arougthopher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am a developer and user of the BeOS operating system, produced
by Be, Incorporated. BeOS is a product that is used world wide.
Recently Be, Inc. was forced to sell its intellectual properties to
Palm, Inc., due to problems getting themselves situated in the
market place. One of the main reasons for this can be summed up in
one word, Microsoft. I am part of a group of people trying to get
BeOS back into the marketplace, but in order for us to this,
Microsoft cannot be allowed to get away with what the actions they
have taken in the past, and continue to take. The proposed
settlement is a start, but some work is needed. The following is a
list of items that I feel would help in our cause, and they the US
DOJ, could help us accomplish.
1. Microsoft Office needs to use open file formats, so that
alternate operating systems can interact with it properly. We don't
need the source code, just the file format. The format chosen should
be standardized by a recognized standards body, and maintained by
them. This way, future compatibility can be maintained.
2. The Win32 API needs to be made publicly available and fully
documented. This is needed so that products, like BeWine or WinBe
can be used to run MS Windows applications under the BeOS.
3. The file systems used by Windows, needs to be opened, so that
operating systems that exist on the same machine as MS Windows, will
be able to access the files that exist under the Windows
directories. Microsoft should also be forced to interoperate with
foreign file systems as well.
4. The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with, must have a alternate
operating system installed, if Windows is installed on that system.
This is the only way alternate operating systems will ever be given
a chance by average users.
The last point I made is the most important. This is the only
way the Microsoft can truly undo the damage they have done to the
BeOS. Because Microsoft had made exclusive contracts with almost all
of the major OEMs in the industry, not many people ever even heard
of BeOS. Be, Inc. is/was a small company, and did not have the
marketing budget the Microsoft has. And since they were unable to
make deals with the OEMs, they could not get their product to
market, except on the shelves of retail stores, over the internet,
and by word of mouth.
The current proposed settlement is too weak, for the damage that
Microsoft has done
to the industry. I don't think Microsoft should be put out of
business, but they should be punished. I currently use some
Microsoft products, and therefore do not consider myself anti-
Microsoft. I do, however, believe in capitalism, and what Microsoft
did was inexcusable.
Thank you for your time,
Paul Ashford
MTC-00010671
From: Richard Paul
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Paul
1134 2nd Street North
Fargo, ND 58102
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Paul
MTC-00010672
From: Spencer Grey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 9:26pm
Subject: Opinion of MS Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I would like to add my voice to those who are against the
current proposed settlement in the antitrust case against Microsoft.
I feel the proposal does little to either redress past
transgressions that Microsoft has made or to meaningfully prohibit
monopolistic behavior from Microsoft in the future. The measures
outlined in the settlement are not realistically enforceable and
subject to manipulation and interpretation.
Consumers and developers alike will ultimately benefit from more
stringent action being taken against Microsoft. Please take this
into account when you make your final decision.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
[[Page 25337]]
Respectfully,
--Spencer Grey, President
** Electric Funstuff
** http://www.electricfunstuff.com
MTC-00010673
From: Mary Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
MTC-00010673 0001
142 LOWELL ST. APT 3
1ST FLOOR REAR
MANCHESTER, NH 03104
MARY A. HENRY
Telephone (603) 666-0574
email: [email protected]
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I enthusiastically support the Microsoft settlement and hope to
see it enacted in the immediate future. The sooner the settlement is
enacted, the sooner Microsoft will be able to return to the business
of making quality software.
The settlement includes many concessions on the part of
Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to licensing restrictions. These
licensing restrictions will allow the twenty largest computer makers
to license the Windows' operating system at the same price. This
allows computer makers more freedom to select the software that they
want to ship to their customers.
Microsoft has come to this settlement with interest in resolving
this issue. We should resolve it as soon as the public comment ends.
Sincerely,
Mary Henry
MTC-00010673-0002
MTC-00010674
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel strongly that Microsoft should be punished for it's
transgressions.
There is a horrible misunderstanding of the point of the suit in
the first place. Microsoft is a monopoly and has used that monopoly
position to force others out of business or to bend to fit their
desires.
Microsoft has done tremendous injury to the Java community,
Netscape, Apple and countless others with it's anti-competitive
practices. It affects people's freedom to choose among alternatives.
It affects the price people must pay, directly or indirectly. It
also has longer-term implications for prople's privacy and security.
It means less innovation and lower quality software. Please consider
this when making your decision. Thank you very much.
Kate Ruter
MTC-00010675
From: Dr. L. E. F. Page
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
While the Tunney Act requires a public comment period, please be
aware that lobbying groups can flood the system with ``public
comment.'' Haven't we spent enough time trying to limit Microsoft
Corp.'s ability to remain an innovative industry leader? The
settlement seems just as proposed, without further breaking up or
restrictions, and I feel you should affirm it as soon as legally
possible.
Sincerely,
Leslie Page (concerned private citizen and internet user)
MTC-00010676
From: Adi Ben Yahya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft--a bully
It is clear that Microsoft is the biggest bully in the school
yard. Worse still, it's now grown so big that it jeers at the
teacher's warnings. For the sake of the others, and ultimately the
bully, it's time to discipline mischievous behaviour.
AB
[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010678
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Ashcroft letter sent this date via US
mail.
MTC-00010679
From: mary-johne hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: PLEASE LEAVE
MICROSOFT ALONE. OUR ECONOMY IS JUST ABOUT SHOT!! YOU'RE NOT HELPING
IT ONE BIT. PLEASE LEAVE MR GATES AND HIS COMPANY ALONE. AMERICA
DOESN'T NEED ANYMORE INSULTS. PLEASE END THIS NIGHTMARE AND LEAVE
MICROSOFT ALONE.
THANK YOU,
MARY-JOHNE HICKMAN
MTC-00010680
From: Jim Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:13pm
Subject: public comment: Microsoft antitrust litigation
I am writing this email to send a short statement on what I
believe would be a suitable remedy to the Microsoft antitrust
litigation. This is in response to the public comment that was
invited for 60 days.
After reviewing the findings of fact in this trial, and based on
my position and experience in the Information Technology industry, I
cannot see how the settlement that is proposed even pretends to
remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been found
culpable. A suitable penalty, in
my opinion, would be to split the Microsoft company into two halves:
one that provides operating systems, and one that provides
application software (including the web browser.) The two halves
must be prohibited from bundling the other's products for a period
of no less than seven (7) years. Further, only one of the split
companies should be allowed to carry the ``Microsoft'' name, to
prevent confusion in the marketplace that the two halves still
operate as one. I believe that such a remedy would require the new
companies to fairly compete with other software companies in the
marketlace. Microsoft would not be able to leverage a monopoly on
the operating system at the desktop level to push application
software. Other vendors would be put on a more level playing field
with the two Microsoft companies. Thank you for your consideration
of my comment.
James Hall
1254 Lafond Ave
St Paul, MN 55104
MTC-00010681
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02 11:43pm
Subject: [email protected]
1102 Lincoln Street Potter, NE 69156-0068
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am a long-time Microsoft supporter. As such, I am pleased with
the settlement reached last November with the department of Justice.
The settlement is a vital end to the litigation process that has
crippled the IT industry in recent years.
The details of the settlement are complex. Microsoft has agreed
to many terms that will increase competitor's ability to access the
Windows' operating system. First, Microsoft has agreed to disclose
the internal interfaces of its software design. This allows
developers to substitute their software in place of the Microsoft
network. The terms of the settlement will allow users to erase
separate aspects from the operating system, such as Explorer or
Media Player.
This settlement is in the public interest. It provides an
opportunity for the IT industry to rebuild itself. Thank you for
your time.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Wills
MTC-00010683
From: melinda stortenbecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:06am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Get it over with. Competition and free enterprise are what made
this nation a hope for everyone, not just a few wealthy. When Gates
started, he was just a nobody with drive and determination. Leave it
be. Melinda Stortenbecker
MTC-00010684
From: Eugene Vilensky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As a college student and a computer enthusiast and future
programmer, it is my strong belief that Microsoft has done
irreparable harm to the computer industry.
[[Page 25338]]
They have done wrong and
deserve to be punished not because they are a successful company,
but because they have violated anticompetitive law, and have done it
with an air of arrogance and political clout and disrespect for the
wishes of consumers.
It is understood that Microsoft is the U.S.' single most
successful company, but they have not done it by pushing out a
quality product that has fought for its own Darwinian place in the
marketplace. They did it by choking off competition--in the case of
preventing computers from shipping with BeOS installed alongside
Windows (or any dual-boot configuration). I was and still am a big
fan of the Be Operating System, it was a powerful tool that would in
a free market have won marketshare on its own merit, but it suffered
because people could not find computers with BeOS installed, hence
the main tenet of competition--consumer choice--was choked off by
Microsoft. Even now I cannot go to BestBuy or circuit city or
Dell.com and easily order a preconfigured Linux machine. Even now
Microsoft is plotting the destruction of consumer choice.
And if we don't punish Microsoft for breaking the law, why can
they not be brought to justice for delivering inferior products? If
GM didn't have Ford to contend with, would you, the ``Department of
Justice'' allow such a GM to ship cars with faulty clutches and
breaks, that would harm people's livelihoods as much as Microsoft
bugs have stolen money from my employer and my fathers employer and
the company that my uncle owns? The damage is in the thousands of
dollars, because Microsoft can defecate in a box, brand it as
`Windows', and the market is forced to accept it. We demand some
semblance of quality from our auto manufacturers, so why not from
our software suppliers? I hope that the DoJ really lives up to its
name, promotes competition and products that succeed on their merits
and creates an economy in which two or even three or four
`Microsofts' can coexist, improving each generation of software upon
that which came before, learning that customers are important when
there is an alternative, and each employing thousands of people and
strengthening the economy.
Best regards,
Eugene
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00010685
From: Mike Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My impression is that the government has spent so much time
listening to disgruntled competitors of Microsoft that it has missed
the end user exposure.
The end user problem with Microsoft is not that it makes
software that competes with other companies. The problem is not that
sometimes MS integrates software into its operating system. From the
end user perspective, the software on a PC should be vertically
integrated. And it should be done by a single manufacturer.
From an end user standpoint, just try to identify the
responsible software maker when something doesn't work and more than
one software maker potentially is responsible. The difficulty to the
end user goes up exponentially with the number of different software
makers involved. E.g Microsoft Windows with Netscape Navigator and
something doesn't work. Neither Microsoft or Netscape will take
responsibility. They just point fingers (if they talk to you at all)
to each other.
The problem is that MS dominates the Operating System market and
therefore can dictate terms to the end user. What the end user needs
is a viable number of choices for an Operating System. More Linux
operating systems on new PCs; more OS2 operating systems on new PCs;
more Apple systems out there.
As an end user, I'd much prefer having a viable choice of what
operating system I would be using on my intel based (there's another
problem) PC. The DOJ has focused on fixing things for malcontents
such as Netscape (whose browsers are clearly inferior to Explorer
and whose own ethics are somewhat suspect). That may be a problem
for companies like Netscape but it is certainly not as significant a
problem for the end user as the total dominance of MS in the
operating system world.
The end user is going to be up a creek without a paddle in the
future because of the near universal usage of Windows. The DOJ focus
should be on making the playing field more level for alternative
Operating systems.
MTC-00010686
From: Jim Herrmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
First some of my background. I have been a computer professional
for 15 years, specializing in data base administration. My
professional career has been mostly with mainframe data bases, but I
have done extensive work from my home with personal computers. I
maintain several web sites for various volunteer organizations to
which I belong.
I believe the Microsoft Settlement has been a capitulation by
the current administration and the Department of Justice to the big
money donations of the Microsoft lobbying and campaign
contributions. The US won this case! Why has the justice department
settled for this woefully inadequate solution to Microsoft's
conviction as a monopolist? This is the penalty phase of this case,
and yet there appears to be no penalty for Microsoft, and in fact if
implemented as written, could actually increase Microsoft's
Monopoly. For true justice to be served, the courts must decide the
punishment and not the politically (and monitarily) motivated DOJ.
For this reason, the settlement as currently written must be
REJECTED!
I would like to point out several flaws in the settlement and
recommend some alternatives that would seem to make more
sense. I refer to the settlement found at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/
cases/f9400/9495.htm
III.A Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...
Not only should Microsoft not be able to punish the OEM, but OEM
pricing should be disallowed for Microsoft. The OEM vendors should
be required to pay full retail price for the operating system and
office products, and pass this on to the consumer. In other words,
strike paragraphs III.B.2 and III.B.3 from the settlement.
Furthermore, the OEM should be required to list this cost as part of
total cost of the machine, and offer all machines they sell with
either alternative operating systems, or no operating system at all
installed. This would provide clear disclosure to consumers of the
``Microsoft tax'' they are paying with each new computer system.
Allowing users to remove items from a purchased machine is
inadequate, as they have already payed the ``tax'' and Microsoft
goes unpunished.
III.D ...Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and
OEMs, ...the APIs and related Documentation... While this is a step
in the right direction, Microsoft should be compelled to make
public, not simply to certain companies but to the public, all
operating system APIs, all communication APIs, and every single file
format, current and future, created or used by any of their
products. The interfaces and file formats should not be allowed to
be considered ``intellectual property'' that would allow Microsoft
to restrict access by imposing ``royalties or other payment of
monetary consideration'' simply to interface with their products.
This will promote true competition by allowing other companies and
the open source community to write programs that can be fully
compatible with, and have equivalent functionality to the Microsoft
monopoly products.
II.J--No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third
parties...
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license...
This paragraph reads like a major legal loophole for Microsoft
that will allow them to get away with keeping large parts of the
interface to their systems a secret by saying that the disclosure
would ``compromise the security'' of that system. The APIs and file
formats I mentioned above should be excluded from this paragraph.
Section V. Termination
B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time
extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with
such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
So if I have interpreted this paragraph correctly, if Microsoft
fails to comply with this settlement in the first five years, their
punishment is to spend two more years not complying!? How is this an
incentive for Microsoft to comply with the settlement? This section
completely removes what few teeth this settlement ever had. This
section should be completely rewritten such that if Microsoft fails
to comply with the settlement, any and all intellectual property not
in compliance will be forfeited to the public domain. That would be
an incentive for compliance!
In summary, the Microsoft punishment for being a convicted
monopolist should include
[[Page 25339]]
the opening and documenting of all
Application Programming Interfaces for their products, the
documented specification of all file formats for documents created
by their products should be public domain, and the complete
prohibition of the discounts and ``bundling'' Microsoft currently
engages in with hardware vendors. Additionally, the legal loopholes
should be removed, and the penalty for non-compliance should be
severe.
A settlement that truly encourages competition is very much in
the national interest and national security. A study released a year
ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and International
Studies, pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually
poses a national security risk. We can not allow any one company to
maintain a strangle hold on something as important to this nation as
the information technology infrastructure of this country. It is
very important for the future of this nation that a careful and
deliberate penalty that restores true competition to the software
marketplace be implemented.
Thanks you for your time,
Jim Herrmann
Kansas City, Kansas
MTC-00010687
From: Steven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 2:58am
Subject: Microsoft Case
To Whom it may concern;
Please consider the settlement offered by Microsoft. Learning
tools and teaching has never been but should be the number 1
concern. Any thing that bolsters the teaching enviorment instead of
the N.F.L. will benefit the future of this nation.
Give our children computers.
Concerned;
Steven R. Evers
MTC-00010688
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
My comments about the proposed final settlement are simple:
1. The settlement ruling must be properly enforced otherwise it
is a complete waste of time.
2. Microsoft Corp. has shown and *continues* to show no
reasonable regard for any person, company, product or authority that
presents an obstacle to the continued growth of Microsoft. They are
the new Mafia.
I offer the following news articles to illustrate my point. Note
that eliminating Linux software is ranked second on Microsoft's
agenda for 2002, despite the fact that Microsoft has 96.28% of the
OS market compared to 2.32% for Apple and .24% for Linux. But Linux
has had success with server software and Microsoft also wants to
contol the internet, so ``the spread of Linux'' must be prevented.
Ximian Gives Linux a Friendly Face
New software package features a graphical interface, but is the
company's first product that won't be free.
Matt Berger, IDG News Service
Tuesday, August 28, 2001
Ximian Desktop, the first packaged software product from the
Boston-based company, includes a suite of desktop applications and a
graphical user interface for Linux PCs,
``We see the biggest opportunity of open source on the desktop
in the corporation,'' says Nat Friedman...
[continues]
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/O, aid, 59743, tk,
dnO82801X, 00 .asp
Topic: MS Internet Monopoly
Msg #381712
Date: Wed, Aug 29, 2001, 2:11:07 PM
From ZDnet:
``The Burton Group analyst Gary Hein says Microsoft.Net can be
summarized in one simple statement: Microsoft is building an
Internet monopoly ... Does the very nature of the Internet prevent
one company from monopolizing the Internet? In a perfect world,
market forces and open standards would prevail. But this isn't a
perfect world''
Continues:
http://news.excite.com/news/zd/0l0829/ll/microsoftnet-a-new
``It's unquestionable that .Net integration will simplify the
Internet experience for millions of users. But at what cost? As a
society, are we willing to cede control of the Internet to Microsoft
for the sake of usability and convenience? Success is far from
guaranteed, but Microsoft will do everything in its power to win.
Our eternal vigilance is the only barrier between Microsoft and its
next monopoly.''
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/
0,aid,59743,tk,dn082801X,00.asp
Topic: ``Software libre!''
Msg #381768
Date: Thu, Aug 30, 2001, 5:34:09 PM
Governments push open-source software
By Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 29, 2001, 4:00 a.m. PT
Governments around the world have found a new rallying cry--
''Software libre!``--and Microsoft is working overtime to quell it.
A recent global wave of legislation is compelling government
agencies, and in some cases government-owned companies, to use open-
source or free software unless proprietary software is the only
feasible option.
This legal movement, earliest and most pronounced in Brazil, but
also showing signs of catching on elsewhere in Latin America, Europe
and Asia, is finding ready converts as governments struggle to close
sometimes vast digital divides with limited information-technology
budgets. So far, there is no evidence that similar legislation is
being considered anywhere in the United States, experts said.
Open-source and free software represent a budget-priced
alternative to Microsoft's Windows operating system and applications
that can cost thousands of dollars a month to license. In addition,
access to underlying source code means governments and
businesses can fix problems or modify software to work more
effectively.
[continues]
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6996393.html?tag=tp--pr
Linux Left Behind: Microsoft, Apple Still Kings of the Desktop
By Remy Davison, Insanely Great Mac
December 19, 2001
Linux may well be capturing more and more of the server market,
but it has still failed to make inroads into the desktop market,
according to StatMarket statistical data, published by WebSideStory.
StatMarket places Linux's web usage at less than 1% of total
internet use. As of December 17, Linux's share of world wide web use
was a *mere 0.24%.* StatMarket says that while use of Linux to
access the net has fluctuated between 2 and 3% over the past three
years, the operating system has not demonstrated real growth in
terms of internet usage.
``Linux has made inroads as a server operating system, but not
on desktops. Its adoption rate among Web users remains miniscule,
even in three years' time.''
Linux--More Bark than Bite.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0l1219/lawO37--l.html>
Macintosh OS Global Market Share Less Than 3% for Three Years,
But Shows Promise in Some Countries SAN DIEGO, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire/--
WebSideStory, Inc. (www.websidestory.com), the world's leading
provider of outsourced e-business intelligence services, today
reported that the global market share for Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL)
Macintosh operating system has remained at less than 3 percent since
January 1999, failing to take significant market share from
Microsoft. Mac's global usage share as of January 2, 2002, was
``2.32 percent'', compared to *Microsoft's 96.28 percent* as of the
same date, according to WebSideStory's StatMarket
(www.statmarket.com) New Microsoft Program Rallies Forces To Crush
Linux Enterprise & Partner Group chief to oversee Linux/Unix
escalation process (URL: http://www.crn.com/Sections/BreakingNews/
breakingnews.asp?ArticleID=32424)
By Paula Rooney
CRN
Redmond, Wash.
7:12 PM EST Tues., Jan. 08, 2002
Microsoft plans to rally its field sales force and partners to
crush Linux--and IBM's efforts with the competitive operating
system--in 2002.
According to a Microsoft memo dated in December, the software
giant will unveil a ``Linux Insiders'' program at the company's
Envision event in January, an expansion of its existing Linux
Competitive Champ Program.
Microsoft also created a new Linux/Unix escalation process that
is being headed up by Microsoft Enterprise & Partner Group Vice
President Charles Stevens, according to the memo, which was written
by Brian Valentine, senior vice president of Windows for Microsoft.
Valentine emphasized that Microsoft will take a more aggressive
role in beating Linux--and any vendors that supports it. ``I want
you to know just how seriously we're taking Linux here in Redmond
.... We have the best d*mn sales force in the world backed by the
best engineers in the world--of course we will take any non-Windows
OS serious,'' Valentine wrote. ``Linux is out there in some
[[Page 25340]]
of your accounts and you may not know it. The ground up nature of how
Linux is introduced into our accounts means that we need to modify our
traditional approaches of finding out about Linux in our customer
base. We have to be more hands-on and dig deeper in your accounts.''
The Linux/Unix escalation process being headed up by the
Enterprise & Partner Group involves getting Microsoft's field sales
force and solution providers to tap into the expertise of the
Microsoft ``Linux Insiders'' to advance Windows 2000 and unseat
rivals Unix and Linux in the server marketplace. The ``Linux
Insiders,'' a task force of Microsoft experts on Linux that will be
unveiled at Envision, will assist the sales force and partners in
preventing the spread of Linux--as well as IBM mainframes/Unix
servers running Linux--in corporate server centers, according to the
memo. ``By building a virtual team of field staff and corporate
resources, we will enable the field to have one place to go for
communication and competitive information. The Linux Insiders will
have access to a centralized Web site where personnel can request
help, route issues and share best practices that the entire field
can leverage,'' Valentine wrote. ``If you still need help for
Global, Strategic and Major accounts, the Linux/Sun Insiders (or
your General Manager) can escalate the issue to the new corporate
Linux/Unix Escalation Team. Let me emphasize that you need to work
with your local Insider or your GM because they have direct access
to this escalation team. The team is committed to provide an initial
response within one working day.''
Microsoft also intends to commission an independent analysis by
DH Brown to attack the perception that Linux is free, the memo said.
Another cost analysis comparison case study between Linux and
Windows, due in May, will assess a variety of usage scenarios such
as Web, file and print.
In the memo, Valentine encourages staffers to snoop around
corporate server environments to locate new sightings of Unix and
Linux. The software giant apparently is concerned about inroads made
by IBM and other Linux backers in the IT segment. ``Ask about the
`connector' pieces--you'll potentially find Linux in these areas.
This is a great way to not only find out about Linux, but also other
IT projects that may include Novell, Sun, Oracle and other
competitors,'' the memo said. ``You can expect us to turn up the
volume on winning against Linux, as well as IBM.''
According to Directions on Microsoft, a Kirkland, Wash.-based
newsletter covering the software giant, ``Linux ranks second among
Microsoft's top 10 challenges for 2002''--next only to engendering
trust in the enterprise for security and reliability. ``This free
but powerful operating system is hurting Microsoft competitors such
as Novell and Sun in the server market, but it could also dampen
growth in Microsoft's server software sales,'' according to the
Directions on Microsoft report issued on Jan. 8. ``IBM is trying to
make Linux a household name. Meanwhile, Microsoft is adding to
Linux's appeal with higher licensing fees and product activation
technologies designed to prevent unpaid use of Microsoft software.''
One systems integrator that sells and services both Linux and
Windows said Microsoft's big push against Linux is not a problem in
the short term, but could pose a conflict in the future. ``This will
not affect us in the current market because ... our current revenue
with Caldera is on Unix platforms,'' said Rich Figer, vice president
of sales at S.B. Stone & Company, Cleveland. ``In the future,
however, when Linux and Unix become closer to one product we could
find ourselves in competition with Microsoft operating systems. Most
of the Unix/Linux market is highly driven by application vendors. If
application vendors choose not to develop on Linux that would be a
much bigger problem. If Microsoft puts their energy in to alienating
application vendors from Linux it would cause problems.''
S.B. Stone, for instance, does 25 percent to 30 percent of its
business with Caldera on Unix platforms, but Microsoft represents
the rest of its business.
Copyright 1999 CMP Media Inc.
Topic: MS rigging votes again
Msg #389420
Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2002, 6:47:00 PM
Sinking to new depths of desperation in its war against Java,
Microsoft has been caught stuffing ballots during an online vote
concerning web services.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23612.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html
The vote, run by ZDNet UK was to see which technology
enterprises were planning to use, to deploy web services. Java was
the clearly winning, having amassed two thirds of the votes.
However, the chaps at ZDNet became a little suspicious by the
complete reversal in statistics a week later ... MS .NET was the
clear winner! A quick look at the server logs revealed an
unprecedented number of votes, originating from the same people
within the Microsoft's domain. One person had even voted 228 times
.... They also found evidence that automated scripts, executing from
servers within Microsoft, were being used to rig the vote.
Microsoft's lack of honesty in attempting to carry out such an act,
is only matched by the stupid, hamfisted way they executed it.
Topic: Rio Riot: 5,000 songs
Msg #389401
Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2002, 1:36:01 PM
Alan:
What WERE they thinking?! They were thinking, probably
correctly, that their largest audience, PC-users, don't have
FireWire. So why bother adding it given the ``cost'' and
``complexity'' of an Oxford 911. Even so, it's a USB 1.1 device, not
even 2.0, which is strange.
This year, all the local employees of the company I work for
were offered a sweetener when buying a new PC through the company;
the cost was deducted from your gross salary, so your benefit is
that you pay less income tax (i.e. if your highest band is 42%, you
really pay only 58% of the computer's cost). Brand-spanking new with
XP. FireWire was not an option. (Obviously, neither were Macs)
(Note: This particular person does not live in the U.S. and
therefore is not subject to U.S. tax laws.)
2. Unless otherwise provided in the revised proposed Final
Judgment, Microsoft shall begin complying with the revised proposed
Final Judgment as it was in full force and effect starting on
December 16, 2001.
1.Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV or IHV because
of that ISV's or IHV's: a. developing, using, distributing,
promoting or supporting any software that competes with Microsoft
Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software,
I.``ISV'' means an entity other than Microsoft that is engaged
in the development or marketing of software products.
Thank you for your time.
Gerald W. ``Grady'' Goodwin, concerned citizen
MTC-00010690
From: Iain O'Cain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a consultant whose livelyhood is threatened by Microsoft's
abuse of their monopoly power. In recent years, I've moved
progressively farther from use of Microsoft products in my own and
my clients' solutions for office applications and Internet services.
Some of the language in the settlement recently proposed by the
Department of Justice concerns me greatly. It appears to me that
this settlement would not only fail to curtail Microsoft's abuses,
much less provide punitive deterrence or compensation to consumers,
but could actually help strengthen Microsoft's attacks on openly
available software.
Much of the language I've read in this proposed settlement seems
to grant Microsoft undue powers for determining their
responsibilities. Some examples include:
Section III(J)(2) seems to allow Microsoft to continue
restricting access to their API, Documentation, and Communications
Protocols from anyone they consider not to be a business! In
particular, ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and
viability of its business...'' seems outrageous to me. Providing my
clients with access to their data often calls for the use of
software like Samba,\1\ which is developed noncommercially through
the collaboration of consultants like myself with the result of
helping all our business practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Information on the Samba project is available at http://
us1.samba.org/samba/samba.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III(D) appears to further limits Microsoft's obligation
to share their API details except to organizations defined as
commercial. What about projects like I've already mentioned? What
about the government's own projects? I know that many consultants
like myself have had to depend at times on the public availability
of software developed at public expense by branches of the
government.
Microsoft have already destroyed, through the practice of
bundling, their main competition in the Internet browser market
despite Netscape's huge lead. Their greatest rival now may be the
Mozilla\2\ browser,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Information on the Mozilla project is available at http://
mozilla.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25341]]
which is developed by a diverse collaboration,
again noncommercially.
Despite bundling Web (WWW) server software and tying that to
their Web content authoring software, Microsoft has yet to dominate
that area. Consultants such as myself still prefer by some margin to
deploy the more efficient, collaboratively developed Apache\3\
software. Yet Microsoft continues to attack our ability to deploy
such Open Source\4\ solutions when it encourages or even forces by
its market position the deployment of its own software, while
keeping its software interfaces secret and designing that software
to depend on connections with Microsoft's own products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Information on the Apache projects is available at http://
www.apache.org/.
\4\Information on the practice of Open Source development is
available at http://www.opensource.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I urge everyone involved to exact greater remedies. Please
restrict Microsoft's ability to wield its monopolies against
innovation by other parties as it has so clearly and consistently
done. Microsoft should have to publicly reveal any software
interfaces they might conceivably use as leverage to block
competition because they have proved how cynically they have been
willing to exploit every advantage to illegally block competition
throughout their existence.
Thank you for considering this input.
Sincerely,
Iain O'Cain [email protected]>
6125 Oakpark Trail
Haslett, MI 48840
MTC-00010694
From: Troy Lister
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 5:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Troy Lister
3130 Oak Road, Apt. 418
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7752
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Troy Lister
MTC-00010695
From: Harris L. Gilliam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writting as a concerned consumer and professional in the
computer indestry to respond to the proposed settlement of the
lawsuit against Microsoft. I watched with much interest the trial
and events that followed. Many industry experts predicted that
Microsoft would indeed be found guilty of anti-competative behavior.
They also correctly predicted that Microsoft would use its
considerable finacial might to ``wait out'' its opponents. This is
exactly what Microsoft has done. They have dragged out the court
battle long enough that the operating systems and products that were
originally in question are almost obsolete. They have protected
their monopoloy position.
The remedies proposed do not go far enough to protect the
industry and its consumers from Microsoft's predatory behavior. I
welcome the provisions to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against
companies that chose to use competetive products. I welcome the
provisions that require Microsoft to publish documentation and
license APIs. These will provide the posibility for third-party
software that competes with Microsoft. Sadly that is all it will do.
It will not significantly change the choices that OEMs have because
Microsoft has already extinguished all third-party competition. OEMs
and other software developers still have a strong financial
incentive to *not* compete with Microsoft. There still is no other
OS which can replace Windows in the PC desktop market. This is
because all the products and software people are dependant on is
written for Windows. The duration of Microsoft's monopoly makes it
prohibitive for any company to arise and produce an alternative to
Windows or Microsoft's consumer products (which, for the most part,
work exclusively with Windows).
For so long consumers have been forced to use Microsoft products
they have become ``slaves'' to the software. There isn't a corporate
IT manager alive that would attempt to build an office system on
anything except Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Schools that
train office administrators and secretaries pretty much use
Microsoft products exclusively. Redmond would like to have you
believe this situation developed because they have
superior products. A conversation with anyone who works in an office
or the casual reading of a trade publication would dispell that myth
quickly. There is barely a day that passes without some report of a
security hole or major defect being found in a Microsoft product.
The stranglehold that Microsoft has on the industry must be broken.
The only way the damage that Microsoft's monopoly has done can be
truly remedied is to create a finacial viable market for software
which competes directly with Microsoft products.
Possible ways to achieve this include:
(1) Require that Microsoft produce versions of all its
middleware products (IE, Microsoft Office, etc) for non-Microsoft
operating systems. This will give OEM's and consumers a choice of
what OS to use on their machines. It is clear that there is only a
choice if OEMs and consumers can still use the products they have
become dependant upon.
(2) Require that Microsoft publish documentation for and licence
not only the APIs that make software compatible with Windows but
also the details of the file formats for their Office suite of
products. Again this is intended to allow OEMs and consumers to have
a choice of what OS to run on their machines. If third-party
software can be written which is entirely compatible with
Microsoft's file formats then this software would also be free to
run on any OS that a competing company chooses.
There are sure to be other ways to achieve the neccesary goal of
creating a real opportunity for competition with Microsoft. While
the curretly proposed remedies do much to prevent certain direct
monopolistic behaviour by Microsoft it does little to correct the
unnatural prosition Microsoft enjoys in the marketplace. There are
few companies in any industry who can consistiently produce
substandard products, as Microsoft does, and yet not incur the
``wrath'' of the consumers. When you have no other choice you settle
for what you can get. As they used to say about Musolini: ``He is a
cruel dictator but at least the trains now run on time.'' The recent
attiude Microsoft has shown with regard to its Windows XP product
(continued bundling of Microsoft-exclusive software and technologies
to stifle competition) and its overall practice of limiting consumer
choice demonstrates that Microsoft is not in the least repentant. It
is clear to this consumer that they don't plan to change their
behavior anytime soon.
The government's decision to not persue further legal action is
a great disappointment. I can only hope the states, who have refused
to cave in to Microsoft, fair well in their continued battle.
Otherwise I don't expect to see any change in the situation.
Harris L. Gilliam
Director of Engineering
Supewings, Inc.
MTC-00010696
From: Gheorghiu Alex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good day,
My name is Gheoghiu Alex and I'm from Europe/Romania. I'm 24
years old and I work with computers since 14 (so I had 10 years of
experience). Right now I'm a student at Faculty of Informatics and
Faculty of Bioengineering.
1. A few years ago when the Internet emerged Netscape browser
was the first and best browser that allow a person to navigate
[[Page 25342]]
on the Internet. This browser was provided by Netscape. After a year
or so, Microsoft launched a browser, named Internet Explorer and
incorporated it in Microsoft Windows 95 an Microsoft Windows 98. So
when you have something that came for nothing and it is imposed you
will used it; and so Nescape in a few years almost disappeared from
the browser market.
2. Around 95 Sun Microsystem launched a new programming language
named Java whose purpose was to allow you to write a program that
will work on every operating system like: Microsoft Windows, Linux,
Unix, to work with special devices like future cell-phones, palmtops
and even to incorporate in a cars computer, microwaves, TV, etc.
When they see that this language became so popular among programmers
they decide to stop its ascension and try to pervert its basic roles
but Sun Microsystem, IBM, Oracle continues to follow initial concept
totally independence from platform.
3. Here is a small funny thing when Microsoft take the
leadership in browser war, they took all rivals facilities (those
facilities included Java) and so Microsoft kept the Java in their
browser. Now they have monopole and because of that they to throws
away Java from the Internet Explorer 6.0 browser and put their
proprietary languages like VisualBasic. All I want to say is that
Microsoft step by step take control of very aspect of computer
world, from operating system to cell phones.
I know that USA is a country where freedom is the law (my
country was under URSS sphere of influence for 50 years and I saw at
my grandparents and my parents what this mean) and I hope that this
humble mail will be a warning for what Microsoft is trying to do. I
do not want my children to live in a Microsoft world and when Ill be
very old my computer that will monitor my life signals to crush (or
to breakdown) ( oh, sorry I've forgotten to say that after THEY
become monopolistic in a special domain their products become
unreliable and full of errors).
I think that will be best for all to listen to Sun Microsystem
and Linux RedHat proposals.
Thank you,
Alex
Please excuse my English.
MTC-00010697
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
Dear Sir/Madam,
Microsoft has a history of attempting to monopolise the market
in every way it can. The competition comes from Linux. Any remedy to
Microsoft's monopolistic practices should include the following.
It is almost totally impossible to buy a computer that does not
have Microsoft's operating system installed. This is a major part of
the problem. A user who wants to install another operating system
must pay for the Microsoft operating system even though it is not
desired. The first requirement for a reasonable remedy should
require that Microsoft's products should be available as extra-cost
options when purchasing new computers. The price that is charged
should be the same as that when not purchasing a computer. In this
way, real competition could begin.
The proprietary formats of Microsoft's document file formats
(both current and future) should be made public, so that competing
products may read documents created with Microsoft products. This
should apply to all the document formats used by all the Microsoft
Office products. This is in addition to opening the Windows
application program interface (API, the set of ``hooks'' that allow
other parties to write applications for Windows operating systems),
which is already part of the proposed settlement.
All the Microsoft networking protocols should be published
fully, and made available for open source developers to implement.
The current proposed settlement limits access to open source
development in a way that benefits Microsoft. Open source is the
major means of providing competition to Microsoft. The settlement
should not exclude open source developers from access to information
about Microsoft protocols that can be used directly. Microsoft is
not adverse to using open source software, then altering it in minor
ways to create a new and incompatible ``Microsoft'' protocol. See
the way Microsoft has ``embraced and extended'' the Kerberos
protocol so that only Microsoft Kerberos servers are compatible with
Microsoft clients. You need to take action to prevent Microsoft from
embracing and extending the Internet, which till now has been an
open environment created by many for the benefit of many, and owned
by no one.
Nick Urbanik RHCE
Dept. of Information & Communications Technology
Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education (Tsing Yi)
Tel: (852)-2436-8576, (852)-2436-8579
Fax: (852)-2436-8526
[email protected] PGP: 53 B6 6D 73 52 EE 1F EE EC F8 21 98 45 1C
23 7B ID: 7529555D
MTC-00010698
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 7:29am
Subject: Microsoft settlement of suit
In my opinion the suit against Microsoft should be settled as
soon as possible. The continuing litigation is not good for the
consumer or the economy. It would benefit all, except the Microsoft
competitors, to put an end to this matter. Please accept the
judgment against Microsoft and let that be the end of this.
Jill Sitcer (Mrs. Gary)
20 BarchesterWay
Westfield, NJ 07090
MTC-00010699
From: Charles R Heilers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settlement seems just and fair. Needs to be put into action.
Charles R. Heilers
1270 W CR 580 N
North Vernon, In. 47265
MTC-00010700
From: Kit Welsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 9:33am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-001
DEAR MR. ASHCROFT,
PROSECUTE OPEC, NOT MICROSOFT OPEC IS THE MONOPOLY THAT HAS
OPENLY CONSPIRED TO CONTROL PRICES AND THUS ADMITS IT IS A MONOPOLY.
THE ONLY WAY I CAN SEE TO DEAL WITH OPEC IS TO ORGANIZE THE OIL
IMPORTING NATIONS INTO A GROUP CALLED OPIC (ORGANIZATION OF OIL
IMPORTING COUNTRIES). WE COULD THEN WORK TOGETHER TO RESTRICT OR TAX
PRODUCTS GOING TO THE OIL EXPORTING COUNTRIES IN ORDER TO FORCE THEM
TO DROP OUT OF OPEC.
MICROSOFT, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS INCREASED MY PRODUCTIVITY BY
MAKING SURE THAT ALL THEIR PRODUCTS WORK TOGETHER SEAMLESSLY. WHEN I
GOT MY FIRST COMPUTER, DOS WAS THE OPERATING SYSTEM AND NOTHING
SEEMED TO WORK TOGETHER PROPERLY. THE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM
BECAME THE STANDARD BECAUSE CONSUMERS LIKED IT. SO, MICROSOFT CAME
TO DOMINATE THE MARKET BY PRODUCING THE BEST PRODUCT, NOT BY
CONSPIRING WITH OTHER PRODUCERS TO CONTROL PRICES.
THE ONLY REASON THIS LAWSUIT HAPPENED IS BECAUSE MICROSOFT
CHALLENGED THE COMPETITION BY GIVING IT'S BROWSER AWAY FOR FREE AT A
TIME WHEN NETSCAPE WAS TRYING TO SELL THEIRS. THAT'S COMPETITION,
NOT MONOPOLY. IT WAS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER. IF THE GOVERNMENT
CONSPIRES WITH NETSCAPE TO STOP MICROSOFT FROM GIVING AWAY THEIR
BROWSER, THEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BECOMES THE MONOPOLIST, AND
THE CONSUMER IS HARMED. PLEASE STOP THIS INSANE PERSECUTION OF A
COMPANY THAT WAS GREATLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES
WE SAW DURING THE 90'S. PLEASE STOP PERSECUTING THE ONE COMPANY THAT
HAS BEEN PRODUCING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CLEAN PRODUCT THAT WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO EXPORT ALL OVER THE WORLD AND HELP WITH OUR BALANCE OF
PAYMENTS. PLEASE ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSED, AND ALLOW MICROSOFT
TO USE THE MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING ON THEIR LEGAL DEFENSE TO CREATE
THE NEXT NEW PRODUCT WHICH WILL INCREASE OUR PRODUCTIVITY AND
STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY BETTER THAN A TAX CUT.
SINCERELY,
KIT WELSCH
216 ARCHER WAY
[[Page 25343]]
BOX 1820
ANNA MARIA, FL 34216-1820
941-778-5230
941-778-7229 FAX
[email protected]
MTC-00010701
From: Lee Wagstaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lee Wagstaff
614 Pine Tree Court
Walled Lake, MI 48390--
Attorney General John Ashcroft
January 12, 2002
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I have very strong feelings regarding the recent settlement
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe that the
government's intervention in Microsoft affairs has done much to hurt
the local and global economy. Mr. Attorney General, wrap up this
settlement now. We can not continue to pride ourselves on our
``competitive spirit'' and then take action against a company that
has bolstered the entire economy of our country by that very same
spirit. And, worse, this action was taken as a result of a few
complaining companies that could not prosper in a competitive
environment and, as a result, blamed Microsoft for their failure.
When the complaining and ultimate threat of legal action drove
Microsoft market value down, it deteriorated the overall market
creating a hole that many companies fell into. Again, Mr. Attorney
General, put an end to this economy debilitating, legal
misadventure.
Everyone knows Microsoft has made very significant strides in
the innovation of this industry. These major innovations may have
given the impression that Microsoft desired to gain unreasonable
control over the market. Not so. But in an effort to placate the
punitively sponsored objections of its competitors, Microsoft has
agreed to remove certain software features from its Windows
Operating System to prevent imposition of future antitrust
violations. Several changes have been made in their business
practices. Microsoft will disclose the internal interfaces and
protocols of its Windows software to competitors; allow competitors
to modify Windows to take out Microsoft software and put in their
own; and have oversight from a Technical Committee. Their compliance
has gone beyond the restrictions and obligations at issue in the
lawsuit. I think that this is more than a fair indicator that
Microsoft is willing to get back to the business of developing new
products.
It is hoped that my expressed views on this issue will aid in
the resolution of this matter. I am more than happy to know that
there is so much cooperative effort to that end. Thank you for your
wise leadership.
With deepest regards,
MTC-00010702
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 9:54am
Subject: READ ON
Hello again:
I would like to see Microsoft made to offer free to all current
Microsoft operating systems all of the preceding operating systems
that the current one obsoleted.
This is so that the excellent software that was not financially
successful for the owners could continue to operate for the users of
the operating systems that need to upgrade to the most recent
version for other reasons, like keeping current with financially
successful software companies newest versions.
I believe that versions like DOS, WIN 3.1, WIN 95 and even WIN
98 could be classified as free to current owners of WIN ME, 2000 and
later.
What do you think? When I gave the idea for WINDOWS to the
UNITED NATIONS in 1979 and suggested that Bill Gates should develop
it, that was FOR the WORLD. Not for Bill Gates personal fortune! He
has turned into a greedy . . .! He was given the idea. He needs to
give back!
Very TRULY yours,
Bernard Solomon Katz
MTC-00010703
From: markrussell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 10:20am
Subject: MS
Gentlemen,
I recently wrote to several State AG's regarding the Microsoft
monopoly case. Several responded and asked that I write directly to
DOJ. I am a 74 year old Consulting Civil Engineer. My first computer
was an LGP30. When I started my own practice in 1965 I ``time
shared'' a GE computer located at their Missile and Space Division
at King of Prussia, PA. using a ``ground line'' and an ASR33
Teletype. (what this proves I don't know, but I was asked by one of
the AG's, who actually called on the telephone, that I include this
``bio.'') I am still practicing, thanks to the PC and without the 50
employees. I went from DOS as an operating system to OS/2 because it
allowed me to keep the data of projects in a ``file folder'' and the
files in each project folder were ``associated'' with the software
with which they were created. IBM, at some time in the past,
announced a new PC and I thought it was time to ``upgrade'' to a
faster machine. Called IBM. Said I wanted their machine and wanted
it with OS/2. Was told they could not sell it with OS/2, only
window. I bought from a local PC store and installed the OS my self.
I consider this a restraint of trade. Microsoft, at the very least,
should be required to open their Application Program Interface to
all so that any program written for window could be easily adapted
to other operating systems. Thank you.
Marcus H. Russell, P.E., L.S.
3 Foxcroft Court
Voorhees, NJ 08043
856-782-0054
MTC-00010704
From: Konrad Ko(FFFF)odziejczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement that Microsoft signed with DOJ and 9 states
should be approved by court because Microsoft didn't violate Sherman
Act. The proposal of other nine states goes for far. Microsoft legal
tied Internet Explorer to Windows and Microsoft legal commingled
Internet Explorer's code with operating system's code.
MTC-00010705
From: Richard Pritchett
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/13/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a former user of IBM's OS/2 as my personal desktop operating
system, I have personally seen the level to which Microsoft has
stooped in order to kill off or severely cripple their competitors.
As is noted in the court case's record of fact, Microsoft put undo
pressure on IBM to get them to stop marketing and selling their
highly acclaimed OS/2 Warp V3.0 and OS/2 2.x operating systems. OS/2
Warp V3.0 was a product that allowed consumers to make an easy
migration from Windows 3.x to OS/2 and still be able to use their
old applications, but to do so on a far superior operating system.
Because this method allowed IBM to get around one of the major
barriers to operating system competition, i.e. applications use and
support, OS/2 was a major threat to Microsoft, and was approaching
the 14 million licenses sold mark (from public comments, not
official IBM numbers). Microsoft forced IBM's hand by making them
either stop their marketing and sales efforts or pay much greater
prices on their OEM contracts for the purchase of Windows95. Since
IBM is, and always will be, a hardware company first, they made the
only business decision they could, which was to stop their OS/2
efforts, and succumb to the pressure from Microsoft. Now I'm stuck
using Windows due to application needs. My desire to use OS/2
persists, but most of the software I use is either not available or
sufficiently immature for me to use OS/2 anymore.
While this is only one of many companies that have been hurt in
this industry, it is clear that a competitive market for operating
systems is the ONLY way to return the software market to a
competitive, and innovative industry that it once was. The currently
proposed settlement fails to address the one key area that is needed
to do this. Microsoft's Application Programming Interfaces (API's),
the underlying software commands that tell the operating system what
to do, and for which programmers must use to properly program a
Windows application, MUST be FULLY documented and open source to the
public domain. There is no other way to get the market back on
track. If the Windows API's are fully documented and released to the
open public, in a very timely manner, then many programmers, who
currently are trying to bring the ability to run Windows programs on
various Linux distributions (WINE Project) and on IBM's OS/2 (Odin
Project), will be able to give the Linux and OS/2 operating systems
the ability to run Windows applications, including their Office
suite, on both operating systems, and any other operating system
where enough interest is present to port the applications.
[[Page 25344]]
Also, Microsoft should be forced to divest its Office Suite
software, as it gives them a dual monopoly which ties into each
other and gives it a lot more power to generate new monopolies, and
keep raising prices for new features (bug fixes). If this department
does not wish to force a divestiture upon Microsoft, then force
Microsoft to release the file formats into the open public so that
other competing office suite makers (Lotus; Sun; Corel before MS
pumped money into them) can allow their suites to use Microsoft
Office files natively, thereby allowing consumers the choice to
decide which office suit gets the job done better. Right now MS has
a huge lock on this market because everyone's documents are in these
file formats that Microsoft changes with each new release so that
other suite makers can't keep up.
In summary, Microsoft must be forced to open its Windows API's
and either divest its Office suite or be forced to publicly document
their file formats (in a timely manner for both). Combined with
restrictions on their OEM license agreements, this should have the
net affect of bringing competition back to the software marketplace.
If these things are not done, then it will simply be a slap of
Microsoft's wrist, and the marketplace will continue to loose small
and innovative companies due to the practices of Microsoft. The list
of greatly innovative companies that were killed off is huge. Many
have already won court cases, or settlements, against Microsoft.
Thank you,
Richard A. Pritchett
Tampa, FL
[email protected]
MTC-00010706
From: rsobba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Case
To whom it may concern,
First some of my background. I have been a computer professional
for 15 years, specializing in data base administration. My
professional career has been mostly with mainframe data bases, but I
have done extensive work from my home with personal computers. I
maintain several web sites for various volunteer organizations to
which I belong.
I believe the Microsoft Settlement has been a capitulation by
the current administration and the Department of Justice to the big
money donations of the Microsoft lobbying and campaign
contributions. The US won this case! Why has the justice department
settled for this woefully inadequate solution to Microsoft's
conviction as a monopolist? This is the penalty phase of this case,
and yet there appears to be no penalty for Microsoft, and in fact if
implemented as written, could actually increase Microsoft's
Monopoly. For true justice to be served, the courts must decide the
punishment and not the politically (and monetarily) motivated DOJ.
For this reason, the settlement as currently written must be
REJECTED!
I would like to point out several flaws in the settlement and
recommend some alternatives that would seem to make more sense. I
refer to the settlement found at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9400/9495.htm
III.A Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...
Not only should Microsoft not be able to punish the OEM, but OEM
pricing should be disallowed for Microsoft. The OEM vendors should
be required to pay full retail price for the operating system and
office products, and pass this on to the consumer. In other words,
strike paragraphs III.B.2 and III.B.3 from the settlement.
Furthermore, the OEM should be required to list this cost as part of
total cost of the machine, and offer all machines they sell with
either alternative operating systems, or no operating system at all
installed. This would provide clear disclosure to consumers of the
``Microsoft tax'' they are paying with each new computer system.
Allowing users to remove items from a purchased machine is
inadequate, as they have already payed the ``tax'' and Microsoft
goes unpunished.
III.D . . .Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs,
and OEMs, . . .the APIs and related Documentation. . .
While this is a step in the right direction, Microsoft should be
compelled to make public, not simply to certain companies but to the
public, all operating system APIs, all communication APIs, and every
single file format, current and future, created or used by any of
their products. The interfaces and file formats should not be
allowed to be considered ``intellectual property'' that would allow
Microsoft to restrict access by imposing ``royalties or other
payment of monetary consideration'' simply to interface with their
products. This will promote true competition by allowing other
companies and the open source community to write programs that can
be fully compatible with, and have equivalent functionality to the
Microsoft monopoly products.
II.J--No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third
parties . . .
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license . . . This
paragraph reads like a major legal loophole for Microsoft that will
allow them to get away with keeping large parts of the interface to
their systems a secret by saying that the disclosure would
``compromise the security'' of that system. The APIs and file
formats I mentioned above should be excluded from this paragraph.
Section V. Termination
B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time
extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with
such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
So if I have interpreted this paragraph correctly, if Microsoft
fails to comply with this settlement in the first five years, their
punishment is to spend two more years not complying!? How is this an
incentive for Microsoft to comply with the settlement? This section
completely removes what few teeth this settlement ever had. This
section should be completely rewritten such that if Microsoft fails to
comply with the settlement, any and all intellectual property not in
compliance will be forfeited to the public domain. That would be an
incentive for compliance!
In summary, the Microsoft punishment for being a convicted
monopolist should include the opening and documenting of all
Application Programming Interfaces for their products, the
documented specification of all file formats for documents created
by their products should be public domain, and the complete
prohibition of the discounts and ``bundling'' Microsoft currently
engages in with hardware vendors. Additionally, the legal loopholes
should be removed, and the penalty for non-compliance should be
severe.
A settlement that truly encourages competition is very much in
the national interest and national security. A study released a year
ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and International
Studies, pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually
poses a national security risk. We can not allow any one company to
maintain a strangle hold on something as important to this nation as
the information technology infrastructure of this country. It is
very important for the future of this nation that a careful and
deliberate penalty that restores true competition to the software
marketplace be implemented.
Thanks you for your time,
Rick Sobba
Prairie Village, KS.
MTC-00010707
From: Lynn and Ms Leanne Sant
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lynn and Ms Leanne Sant
P.O. Box 329
Preston, ID 83263-0329
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
[[Page 25345]]
Lynn and Leanne Sant
MTC-00010708
From: Dave Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have been involved in developing computer software for 25
years. I have watched Microsoft's behavior since the very first PCs.
I currently own a computer company that focuses on the development
of Java software for the healthcare market, with a particular
emphasis on the Medicaid sector. I would like to make the following
points.
1. In my opinion Microsoft has a tendency to sit back and let
the venture community, and entrepenures invest many millions of
dollars with early stage technologies. Once the economic viability
of these products has been established, Microsoft steps in with a
free, bundled or tightly integrated product that destroys the
competition. Once there is no more competition they begin to charge
what the market will bear for the bundled solution.
2. At the heart of the problem is the fact that Microsoft is
using it's base level software first DOS, then Windows, Windows
applications, Browsers to insure that the entire industry propagates
their initiative. If a group develops software that is truly
innovative, then Microsoft will buy it or build a clone that is
offered as a part of the windows initiative. Any settlement that
allows Microsoft to pay compensation by giving away software, which
will further their ambitions to educate the world that Microsoft
products are the only answer, is counter productive. Having
Microsoft purchase and distribute computer hardware from a variety
of manufactures seems appropriate. This Hardware should be pre
loaded with some of the software that has been injured by the
Microsoft practices. The latest version of Java and one or more of
the excellent development environments for Java should be pre loaded
to the exclusion of Microsoft development software. The Latest
version of Netscape's browser should be pre loaded instead of IE.
Initiatives such as these would be much more consistent with with a
resolution to the problem.
3. I believe that Microsoft should be forced to distribute a
version of Java that's meets the current Java specification with any
operation system that Microsoft ships, including Windows CE. The
problem with Java is a distribution problem. Insuring the
availability of an alternative to consumers and the ability for
developers to assume that a current Java application will run on a
consumer device is a huge step towards opening competition.
4. My organization often responds to local, State and Federal
RFPs. All too often these RFDs specify that only Microsoft solutions
will be accepted. I do not believe that it is the job of our
government to promote Microsoft products in any way. The government
should be specifying software that is compliant with recognized
standards organizations and requesting features that are relevant to
the tasks associated with the procurement.
Regards
David P. Walsh
President
eServices Group
MTC-00010709
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Friends, I believe that it would be in the best interest of
the country (even if it weren't in the grip of recession,) to settle
the Microsoft case quickly and fairly. I think it was a bad decision
to reject the generous offer Microsoft made. Please, please, for the
benefit of us all, end this unnecessary case and the waste of the
government's money. When you look at the outrageous Enron case which
also will cost much of the public's precious money, (this is not a
waste,) the Microsoft's offenses disappear.
Mary Daley,
11811 E Terra Drive,
Scottsdale, AZ 85259 (480) 391-1817
MTC-00010710
From: R Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to express my opinion regarding the recent
settlement in the Microsoft Anti -Trust case. First of all, this
whole case was ridiculous and is clearly an attempt on the part of
some of the Microsoft competitors to invalidate the competitive
advantages of Microsoft and steal their intellectual property. The
government has been erroneously dragged in to a technical discussion
it does not have the ability to moderate nor does it have any
business intervening in the affairs of a private company. However,
what's done is done and this settlement should be the final end to
this mess. Spending more time further evaluating the details of the
settlement is a waste of money. The most recent judicial decision
just complicates and extends the whole silly case. With the existing
recession and our newly rediscovered partisan politics our economy
can't stand to have our IT industry continue to be burdened in this
manner.
I am currently retired, but was involved in the computer
industry for nearly 30 years, the last 15 of which were as a CEO of
a public computer company. I was closely involved with Microsoft
products and still use them for my daily computer use. Given our
free enterprise system, I am free to use whichever products I see
fit, and nothing Microsoft has done precludes me from using whatever
software and hardware I choose to use. Like thousands of other
Americans, I use Microsoft because it is easy to use, and more
importantly it provides a standard which encourages the rest of the
industry to provide compatible products. It is my belief it is these
standards issues that have allowed us to become the premier technical
and business country on the planet. The settlement will make it even
easier for non-Microsoft products to be used on people's computers.
Additionally, Microsoft will be handing over their coding and
interface design (Which is intellectual property) to help their
competitors compete more fairly(Unfairly??) in the market. I don't
see what more could be asked of Microsoft. Please make sure this
settlement is respected and that this lawsuit is put to an end.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Carlson
MTC-00010711
From: Phil Patterson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phil Patterson
6300 Welles Brook
San Antonio, TX 78240
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
[[Page 25346]]
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Phil E. Patterson
MTC-00010712
From: Bernadette Hein
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bernadette Hein
72 Cambridge Dr.
Hershey, PA 17033
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Bernadette Hein
MTC-00010713
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Go ahead and settle.
Brian Boyd
MTC-00010714
From: Jens Bj(FFFF)rlo Tandstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case against Microsoft is clearly that of a Monopoly
exploiting markets and manipulating consumer patterns of purchase.
Moreover, the delay and discrimination as to when and to what degree
information is disclosed to third party software developers not
member of the Microsoft Software production family. The effects of
this monopoly includes, but are not limited to:
--Lack of freedom when purchasing software goods.
--Lower quality of products not a part of or cooperating with
Microsoft.
--The hardware industry favouring Microsoft because of it's market
position, tailoring hardware to the Windows OS, and thus strengtens
their position further, hindering competition.
--Security issues due to recurring exploits and weak spots in the
Windows system. This is an effect much affected by the Microsoft
strategy to include all types of programs in the OS, thus removing
the convenience and often possibilty of not using a program in which
there is a considerable security hazard. (Internet Explorer, Instant
Messaging, Microsoft Network protocols)
--Deliberate neglecting file formats to create inconvinence so that
people stop using competing programs.
You all know this, make the right decision. Let us have the
benefits of a free market.
Jens Tandstad
NORWAY
MTC-00010715
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:21pm
Subject: Settlement Microsoft
I am against the proposed settlement in US vs. Microsoft. You
should stop criminal behaviour by all means. You should never reward
criminal monopolitic activities with a higher market penetration.
I think that if a small company had the behaviour of MS, the
management would be punished with sending to prison. Why don't you
do that with the MS management?
May be you can punish the MS management with the obligation of
developing each application for multiplatform? (f.i. Apple and
Linux) Then you can minimalise the effects of the present
monopolism. And all users would benefit with a higher degree of
freedom.
MTC-00010716
From: Charlie Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I applaud the DOJ for finally settling the suit with Microsoft.
It is good that the federal government is moving forward to items of
far greater importance and not wasting any more taxpayer dollars on
an issue it shouldn't have even looked at in the first place. In my
humble opinion, this suit did nothing to benefit consumers; it was
filed purely at the behest of companies who failed in the
marketplace because of their own ineptitude, and the fire was fanned
by a bunch of ambulance-chasing lawers whose egos and arrogance far
supersede any other interest.
Charles S. Parker
MTC-00010717
From: Randy Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Opinion
Competition is what is needed to ensure a good product. Without
competition, there is no reason to make a better product or for that
matter make the existing product better.
It is for that reason I am opposed to a settlement with
Microsoft
Thank You
Randy Hartley
MTC-00010718
From: M. Hermann
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
M. Hermann
14359 SE 6TH ST, Apt 204
Bellevue, WA 98007-6733
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Martel C Hermann
MTC-00010719
From: George Keselman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Technical Reviewer Board proposed is useless. Those 3
persons will have no effective rights, and will be manipulated by
Microsoft during 1 month each serves. One of two Board members is to
be assigned by Microsoft, and the third one is also to be elected by
that Microsoft assigned person. What a brilliant idea!
The Microsoft phenomenon can be viewed as promoting public
computing ignorance through not educating and limiting choices. It
is easy due to human nature. That's why it succeeded in the game.
The document should forbid Microsoft promote its system in public
schools without teaching equal or more time Linux or Unix systems.
It is easy, too, but there is a powerful lobby in the US government
that promotes Microsoft only. This is the primary reason the
situation persists.
George Kesleman
Atlanta, GA
MTC-00010720
From: Jim A Goluch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft--DOJ
2011 ``I'' St.,
Laporte, IN 46350- 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement
between Microsoft and the US department of Justice. I think the
settlement is ion the best interest of the American public because
it forces Microsoft to make some concessions that will even the
[[Page 25347]]
playing field, but it also allows Microsoft to get this suit off its
chest and continue to innovate as it has for over a decade.
Microsoft has really standardized the industry and its products,
services, and training are really outstanding. As a computer analyst
I would say though that I believe their marketing tactics are a
little heavy handed, so the fact that Microsoft will be increasing
its relations with software developers and computer makers as well
as agreeing to design future versions of Windows to make it easier
for competitors to market their products within Windows.
Since the settlement does seem fair and just, I urge your office
to finalize it, and help facilitate ending the nine remaining states
opposition. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
James Goluch
MTC-00010721
From: limoman 2929
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please See Attachment
MTC-00010722
From: S I
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dearest Judge K;
Please take a careful look at the Proposed Final Judgement that
the Dept of Justice is trying to foist upon the American people. It
is an outrage that Microsoft--after having been found guilty time
after time in American courts--is about to be let off basically
scott free. Why should the strongest and wealthiest Americans get
off from obeying the law?
I have been in the software industry for almost 10 years--and I
have personally seen Microsoft rip off ideas, patents, products and
even entire companies. Repeatedly. But this is no different then
what the courts have found. I know run a small company--and we have
to tiptoe around MS all the time--as do all software companies our
size.
Please protect small, independant software developers like
myself. That's the great thing about our country--the rich and
powerful don't always win. thank you very much.
Sasha Winston
Menlo Park, CA
MTC-00010723
From: Jane Waski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
420 East 64 Street
New York, New York 10021
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the opportunity to
speak on behalf of ordinary consumers. Companies like Microsoft
don't become powerful because of competitors, but because of people
like me who purchase and use their products. I am an avid user of
Microsoft software, and feel that they have been unfairly singled
out. Nevertheless, I also believe that the current settlement
satisfies the government and public interest in a way that should
allow this suit to end. I feel that the three-year lawsuit and the
efforts of the negotiations have culminated in a settlement that is
both fair and reasonable.
While new government regulations will be imposed on Microsoft's
business and technology practices, this settlement will provide
certainty about the new rules and thereby ensure that the company
can continue delivering advanced American technology to the
marketplace. I also believe that this case has had a direct impact
on the federal and state economies. During this difficult time, it
doesn't make sense to spend more money on a battle that has already
been won. Under the agreement, competitors can sue Microsoft if they
feel that the company is not complying with the terms of the
settlement, and Microsoft can continue innovating in an effort to
maintain its competitive advantage. In short, I think that the
necessary corrections have been made to solve the problems, and now
it is time to return focus from litigation back to innovation. The
settlement agreement is the first step in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Jane Waski
MTC-00010724
From: Matthew Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:56pm
Subject: Comments on the settlement between the USDOJ and Microsoft
I am writing to you to state my disappointment at the proposed
settlement with Microsoft in the antitrust case. I cannot see anyway
that this settlement punishes the convicted corporate felon
Microsoft, improves competition or helps the consumer. I work in
computer industry, although not with a competitor of Microsoft.
However I work on an embedded Internet browser. Because Microsoft
Internet Explorer is so pervasive (a monopoly) and because it has
undocumented extensions it is virtually impossible to produce a
browser that can compete. While it might appear that web browser
technologies such as HTML and HTTP are standards the reality is that
they are so inadequate and incomplete (and ignored) that the only
way to be assured that the page ``renders correctly'' is to try to
guess at what IE does. This forces all competition to chase IE.
There is no standard for validating HTML therefore the de-facto
validation is ``looks good in IE.'' This is only one example of the
problems with Microsoft's monopoly.
I believe that the remedy suggested by judge Jackson makes far
more sense than the current proposed settlement. Furthermore some of
the parts of proposed settlement will only reenforce Microsoft's
monopoly, especially the part about donating software. I suggest the
eventual punishment for Microsoft include:
1. Breaking up Microsoft into three separate competing
companies. One for operating systems, another for applications and a
third for online services such as MSN, Passport, Hotmail etc.
2. Microsoft should be fined billions of dollars for monopoly
behavior and producing bug ridden security inept software.
3. PC manufacturers should be forced to provide users with an
alterative for pre-installed operating systems. For example,
customers should be able to request that Linux is pre-installed.
4. Microsoft operating systems should be required to ship with
the latest version of the Java runtime environment from Sun
Microsystems.
The current settlement does nothing to benefit this country, the
computer industry or consumers. Therefore I urge you to discard it.
I also urge you to take the hardest line in punishing Microsoft to
the maximum possible.
I would be happy to provide additional information if required.
Sincerely,
Matthew Jones
12918 View Mesa Street
Moorpark, California 93021
Telephone: (805) 531-0474
email: [email protected]
MTC-00010725
From: Rick Creson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/13/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case
This entire case needs to be dismissed. Anti Trust made no sense
in the beginning and makes no sense now. The people who have made
the most noise abut this case and have prompted the government to
pursue action against Microsoft are the people who want any and all
competition to go away, specifically Larry Ellison of Oracle, Scott
McNeely of Sun and those in charge of Netscape. Microsoft may have
gone beyond the acceptable to ``compete'', however, the Government
has gone beyond sanity in its contention that competition is not
acceptable to Microsoft. Regarding operating systems, I believe that
everyone who pays attention, knows that a myriad of operating
systems will never occur. Effectively, Industry has determined that
there are three effective operating systems with which they will
participate: 1) IBM and their Mainframe environment, which serves
large scale systems, 2) The UNIX environment that serves mid-size
and client server systems, and 3) Windows, which serves the desktop
and acts as the clients to the client-server environment.
If a company was to create the next ``better'' operating system,
one of the three above would disappear, just as Digital's VM
Operating system dissipated and then disappeared with the growth of
UNIX and Windows. By the way, the demise of Digital, created the
birth of Oracle and SUN. You did not hear Ellison and McNeely
complain about that one.
Lastly, Apple Computer has been around for years. They have been
unsuccessful, not because of Microsoft but because of their
inability to serve the business marketplace and because the business
marketplace saw no room for them.
Please stop this nonsense against Microsoft and move on.
Rick Creson
[[Page 25348]]
[email protected]
Meridian Technology Group, Inc.
4949 SW. Meadows Road #440
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
503-697-1600 In Oregon
800-755-1038 Outside Oregon
503-697-8600 Fax
www.meridiangroup.com
MTC-00010726
From: Elaine Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Court of Appeals settlement is fair & just. As a
WEB TV Grandfather & GRANDMOTHER Microsoft ha added so much to our
lives from letters to & from our Children & Grandchildren to
pictures of our Greatgrandaughters--also activities we never thought
we could do on the Web. We live in a retirement village & we all are
greatful to Microsoft for all their efforts in our behalf.Please
settle the case in Microsoft's FAVOR!!!
Sincerely
Elaine E, & Simon Cohen
MTC-00010727
From: david snyder
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Snyder
700 Anne Ln.
Henderson, NV 89015
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David L. Snyder
MTC-00010728
From: David Thieme
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I sent the attached letter to Att Gen Ashcroft & Senator Rick
Santorum.
David C. Thieme
27 Pine Free Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-5568
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to encourage you to finalize the Microsoft
settlement. The Justice Departments pursuit of Microsoft has cast a
dark cloud over the information technology industry for more than
three years. I work for Ciber and our business has slowed down
drastically due to the unknown future of Microsoft. Companies are
afraid to move forward, new technology is not being used, all
because Microsoft's future is unknown. I for one blame the Federal
Government for the current recession. This blatant attack on
corporate America is, in my opinion based solely on jealous envoy of
their success. America no longer has a free market system. By
interfering with Microsoft our government has impacted our economic
system in ways that will take longer to repair than it did to
inflict such harm. The current proposed settlement will at least
allow Microsoft to refocus its energies in the American arena where
it is sorely needed. Yes, Microsoft is the Giant in the market, but
they got there by a vision of the future. A future no other company
saw. So why do we punish them for making our future what it is? This
action has not only impacted Microsoft but the whole Information
Technology community. Many have new innovative ideas but are afraid
to act on them for fear of winding up like Microsoft.
As a born again Christian, I was so pleased to see that someone
in Washington was not afraid to stand up and acknowledge his
beliefs. I felt assured that you would be able to evaluate our laws
with the insight and beliefs our founding fathers based this country
upon. You understand the importance of our freedoms and the reasons
why a Free Market is so successful. The tyranny of government must
be returned to a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people. Mr. Ashcroft, it is time to allow innovation to continue
in America.
While I fear that this settlement will still continue to snuff
out the brightness of our potential technological future, I think it
is far better that the past six years have been. The settlement as
proposed looks like it will satisfy the prosecutions arguments. It
also looks like it will please most of Microsoft's competitors,
except the ones who would not be satisfied until Microsoft was no
longer in business. The settlement forces Microsoft to share its
technological break-throughs with its competition, and open the
Windows Operating system source code.
It also compels them to stop allegedly anticompetitive practices.
All monitored by an oversight committee chosen by the Justice
Department and the Microsoft's competitors. I believe sufficient
concessions have been made. Most importantly from my view Microsoft
will remain a sole corporate entity enabling it to continue to push
American Technology into the future we deserve. The economy needs a
Microsoft, as does the Information Technology industry and most
importantly America needs Microsoft back in the game. Please support
this settlement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Thieme
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00010729
From: Bob Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 2:29pm
Subject: antitrust
Dept of Justice,
The remedies proposed for Microsoft's proven monopolistic and
anti competitive behavior are entirely too weak. Look to history as
a guide for the proper appropriate response to a trust or monopoly.
Have you no spines? These remedies don't even amount to a slap on
the hands. Look up what the remedies were for Standard Oil and AT&T
after they were proven as monopolists in court. Like Microsoft (MS),
they were rich, fought long and hard in court, but were rightly
found to be illegal corporations. They were broken up to preserve
competition and stop the monopolistic behavior--and their ill-gotten
cash gains were removed. All of these steps are crucial.
First, you must remedy the monopoly itself, in this case the
suggested solution amounts to the same one used during previous
failed attempts to oversee company behavior. Two consent decrees
were levied--neither one worked--Microsoft continued (and continues)
to tie new features into their operating system at the expense of
competitors and consumers. It is time to split Microsoft's OS from
direct company control into a new company. Anything less will lead
to the same monopolistic behavior that we have seen before and
continue to see with the release of Window's XP. MS, with the rushed
release of XP, attempts to harm RealAudio by grafting the weak MS
streaming media stand alone programs to the pre installed OS that
comes on new computers. Thereby foisting one more inferior MS
product onto the consumer who wants to buy a new computer but not
the MS media players. In the process RealAudio, the key innovator,
and maker of the number one media player is hurt--much like what was
done supplant the previous number one browser Netscape with inferior
new number one MS Explorer. You are fooling yourselves if you think
this will change with the current remedy.
Second, you do not let the monopolist use the gains from
previous monopolistic behavior to then buy into other industries and
continue to profit from the past monopoly. In this, the current
remedy is completely lacking. In effect what the latest settlement
does is to let MS sit on it's multibillion dollar war chest stolen
using the Window's OS monopoly. MS continues to use that cash to buy
out promising companies with competing, threatening technologies to
protect MS's inferior products. This harms consumers and puts a
[[Page 25349]]
chill on innovation and leaves MS free to continue to stifle
competition. Make an accurate study of the estimated gains from the
demonstrated monopoly and remove that cash from MS and return it to
consumers. And we are talking billions here not some bargained down
fine that is politically palatable.
MS's influence on the peoples elected officials ranges far and
wide, but don't doubt for a second that the people will remember
those in government that let the worst monopolist of our times off
virtually scot-free. . . .again.
Bob Kaufman
Bellevue WA
MTC-00010730
From: SSteele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 2:48pm
Subject: Settle Microsoft case
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
Stephen D. Steele
Cortex Medical Management Systems, Inc.
600 Ericksen Avenue NE, Suite 320
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010731
From: William B. Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Deparment:
The proposed settlement with Microsoft makes it seem as if it is
a company that is only cocerned about innovation and fair minded
capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Microsoft is a government backed monopoly used to provide a
uniform computing platformto simplify subjugation of the citizens.
Breaking up Microsoft is the logical solution. I do not expect it
because government prosecution of Microsoft is a sham to pay lip
service to those who rightly fear fascism.
If there are those in the U.S. Justice Department who admire
Teddy Roosevelt (``The Trust Buster''), then perhaps a break-up of
Microsoft can be hoped for. Please attempt it.
Sincerely,
William Moore
1215 Oxley Road
Columbus, Ohio
MTC-00010732
From: Frederic Marchand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello.
I think that there is an urgent need to open the PC OS market to
other solutions than Microsoft. A statu quo at this time will only
strangle the market.
If you want to have an idea, go to your local PC store and ask
for a PC without Microsoft's OS (an empty PC). You'll see. . .
One action which should be taken is to force Microsoft to have
the acknowledgement of the court for all their OEM contracts in
order for the court to prevent any monopolisitic usage.
I am a BeOS user and I am sure that BeOS development has been
put on hold by Microsoft influence or pressure and/or contracts. the
result is the bankrupcy for a company which tried to be
``innovative'', something Microsoft pretended to protect. . .
Frederic Marchand
Paris, France
MTC-00010733
From: Craig Hillemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Persuant to provisions of the Tunney Act, I am writing to
express my opinion on the settlement reached between Microsoft and
the Department of Justice in November of last year. Apparently nine
states are seeking to further prosecute the Microsoft Corporation.
As both a taxpayer and purchaser of personal computer software
products, I do not believe that the antitrust case against Microsoft
should be dragged out any longer.
Please be reminded that the purpose of antitrust laws in the
United States is to protect consumers like me, and not to support
the self-interests of competitors in the marketplace. The parties
that goaded the DOJ and states to file antitrust actions were
Microsoft's competitors, not consumers like me. Microsoft's
competitors are obviously envious of Microsoft's success, but the
reason Microsoft has succeeded is simply that Microsoft has
consistently delivered better and more cost-effective products, and
furthermore fostered a large market and environment inviting
competition. As result, enormously more quality, low-cost hardware
and software is available from both Microsoft and other vendors for
Windows than for any other operating system (e.g, Linux, MacOS,
Solaris, etc.).
Microsoft's Windows product provides excellent functionality for
the price. As a consumer, I want Microsoft to bundle as many applets
as possible in Windows, and I do not appreciate hardware vendors
modifying Windows. My computer-using colleagues feel similarly.
Windows as provided by Microsoft works well on a remarkably wide
range of computer hardware. The applets included in Windows provide
very helpful functionality with dependable stability and user
interface
[[Page 25350]]
consistency. Their inclusion does not prevent other
vendors from developing products with greater functionality, but
does provide a useful standard for other vendors to try to surpass.
I have read the entire Appellate Decision for this case, and
based on the facts, including my own experience as a computer user,
I do not believe bundling Internet Explorer in Windows was unlawful.
Frankly, I appreciate the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows.
Microsoft's alleged misrepresentation of Java support may have been
questionable, but the context was a struggle with Sun, one of
Microsoft's biggest detractors, for control of the language.
Microsoft has since pulled back support for Java in Internet
Explorer. Anyway, the proposed settlement goes well beyond any
reasonable remedy in view of Microsoft's possible misstep. Under the
circumstances, the agreement made between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice was certainly more than fair. All parties
directly involved (not counting Microsoft's competitors) seem
satisfied with the terms reached. Microsoft has agreed to license
its software and applicable intellectual property rights to its
major competitors. Moreover, Microsoft is planning to format future
versions of Windows so that its competitors will be able to
introduce and endorse non-Microsoft software in Windows. Microsoft
has also agreed to disclose Windows line code to competing computer
software producers. However, I personally will want the full version
of Windows from Microsoft without it being hacked by other vendors.
I do not believe litigation should continue in this case. There
is no need to drag the suit out any longer. You and you office
should back the settlement.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Craig L. Hillemann
1229 Crestover Road
Wilmington, DE 19803
302-479-0432
[email protected]
MTC
-00010734
From: Brooks, Rama
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/13/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft needs to slow down
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Rama K. Brooks and I am a CompTIA A+ Certified
Computer Technician working for the State of Indiana/Dept of
Administration/Division of Information Technology. We are still in
the middle of upgrading the state's infrastructure with Windows 2000
from Windows NT 4.0 and now XP and the .Net servers are coming out.
If Microsoft took more time in developing newer versions of Windows
then we wouldn't have to deal with all these security issues and
bugs. Not only that but the Enterprise Agreement we have with them
allows us x amount of licenses for desktops, servers, and apps.
Because of budget constraints we can't get all the state agencies
upgraded to Windows 2000. And now we have agencies that want to
purchase XP. I am feeling that we are being pushed for forced
upgrades. Upgrading any part of the IT infrastructure should be done
because it is technically a sound idea for the organization, not
because a software company wants to force it down our throats.
I started out wanting to become an MCSE (Microsoft Certified
Systems Engineer) around 1995. I started to study on my for the
Windows NT 4.0 track and then found out it was going to be replaced
with the 2000 track. I have been working for the State of Indiana
since April 16, 2001 and that is when I started to get the hands on
experience for Windows 2000. Now the XP track is coming out. Before
you needed at least 2 years experience with the software to pass the
test. But with XP, the test it came out the same time as the
product. I have invested over $500 in study guides for the 2000
track. Stop the insanity might be a better term. I feel as a IT
professional that because of their greed, Microsoft is going to kill
the MCSE credential and the best part is that the Dept of Justice
doesn't need to do anything for that to happen. Employers are going
to realize that the only way for people to be certified in Windows
XP (before this track expires) and not have the 2 years experience
with the product is going to mean that they are more likely a
``paper MCSE''. Unless it is someone upgrading from the NT 4.0 track
or Windows 2000 because they have the base knowledge and experience.
All they need to do is learn what's new with the XP track.
I find the idea of XP sending information to Microsoft's website
from the user's PC rather disturbing and unethical. This presents a
rather significant security risk for criminal hackers (crackers) and
cyber-terrorists to break into a network. How safe would you feel to
know if the FBI had deployed XP on all their special agents
desktops? I would say that in some instances this could pose a
national security risk (it all depends on who is using XP and how
critical their data is kept).
Perhaps a fair solution would be to have Microsoft give those
schools money instead of Microsoft products. Breaking up Microsoft
would be bad because then they could spread out to all the areas
that this lawsuit is trying to stop them from doing. And if Linux
takes over more and more desktops then don't be surprised Microsoft
porting Office to Linux. They will soon learn the lesson that IBM
has just learned (on there own) that you can't be everything to
everyone and dominate it all. IBM has regrouped on what it want s to
focus on, and that will be the same fate Microsoft will soon suffer.
In their defense Microsoft is a publishing company. It would be
like saying that McGraw-Hill has unfair advantage on school text
book market. AOL which holds the monopoly on Internet Services
Providers had merged with Time Warner to become the ``monopoly'' for
media. But many upstart Internet Service Providers are popping up
and thriving. Why? Because of customer focus and satisfaction. When
companies get too big, they stop caring for their
customers. That is when they
start loosing business. A case in point would be the phone company
or McDonalds. Both have given me (as well other people I know) lousy
services, but they make enough that they don't care. You go to a
family own dinner and usually you get the best service. If you want
proof that pertains to this case, then look at LINUX. It was created
around 1992 by a college student in Finland. He then cut it loose,
source code and all to the open source community. He still controls
the final say about changing the kernel (the heart of the operating
system), and there are companies making money of distributing it, as
well as writing programs for it. The result, it is being ported to
watches, radios, PDAs, cars, robots, and any electronic device you
can think of as well as any kind of CPU architecture. Basically
Linux went in 10 years from a ``radical underground movement'' to a
business quality type of Operating Systems that Microsoft has
identified as it's main threat. Linux has accomplish everything that
Microsoft wanted Windows to accomplish or Scott McNealy (Sun
Microsystems) wanted Java to accomplish. Where did these companies
go wrong? It is because they tried to dominate the market and
control their standards while making a hefty profit. Most of Linux's
migrations to different electronic devices you can download the
source code free and compile it or pay for a packaged CD.
Linux also has several different professional certifications.
And with CompTIA creating a Linux+ certification shows more proof
how Linux is business accepted Operating Systems.
Don't split Microsoft up, because that will create a different
Microsoft company for each area they are trying to monopolize.
Instead let them grow and become more bloated. Their greed will be
their downfall. In the early 1980's IBM wanted to enter the PC
market, and Texas Instrument (who dominated that market) had pulled
it's TI-99/4A off the market. IBM asked CP/M (the dominant company
for operating systems) to create an operating systems for their PC.
When CP/M told them no, a little upstart company called Microsoft
offered to do it. Now it seems that things are coming full circle
because Microsoft is where CP/M was 20 years ago. And Linux is where
Microsoft was 20 years ago, except Linux is more user driven versus
company driven.
Just fine Microsoft a multi-billion dollar fine and end this
whole trial. I would also suggest that you take on AOL/Time-Warner
as the new monopolistic threat.
Sincerely,
Mr. Rama K. Brooks, A+
Systems Analyst
State of Indiana
Department of Administration
Division of Information Technology
Indiana Government Center North
100 Senate Ave., Room N551
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-1052--Office phone
(317) 232-0748--Fax
CC:Zust, Brian
MTC-00010735
From: Guoliang Qian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Hi,
This is Guoliang Qian, a Ph. D. in Computer Science from CUNY
Graduate School.
[[Page 25351]]
What I would like to see: 1. Microsoft will document OS features
and APIs in a complete and timely fashion. 2. Seperate from
Microsoft OS development and application program development
businesses.
What I would NOT like to see: Force Microsoft to open the source
of its Windows operating system.
Justification for the above: To promote innovation and fair
competion.
Thank you!
Guoliang
MTC-00010736
From: Sally Ciarlo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please stop wasting tax dollars and time persuing this case.
Microsoft has done more for the taxpayers of this country than all
of you down in Washington put together.
MTC-00010737
From: Charles A Sellon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft settlement
MTC-00010738
From: Lisa Starbuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not agree to this settlement. Microsoft has shown
again and again that they will not play by the rules, and this
settlement does not go far enough to ensure a level playing field.
In particular, my concern is for the lack of limitations on what
Microsoft can include in their ``operating system''. They have
already killed off several companies by copying their concept and
integrating it into their system in such a way that few companies
can compete. The long this goes on, the worse it will get.
Thanks for your time and attention to this matter.
Lisa Starbuck
MTC-00010739
From: donald j annis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a retired IBM employee. While working in a division
principally involved with department of defence contracts, I watched
the justice department distract and stifle IBM's business activities
for the better part of 10 years only to have the case closed with no
significant conclusion.
Much the same can be said for the Microsoft situation. It is
time to bring this case to a speedy end. This case likewise is an
unnecessary burden to Microsoft, the economy and the justice
department.
Regards,
Donajd J Annis
22 Holiday Hill Road
Endicott, NY 13760
MTC-00010740
From: Gary Cauchi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire
to settle this lawsuit.
Gary Cauchi
5935 East McKenzie Avenue
Fresno, California 93727
MTC-00010741
From: Jeffrey Burger
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeffrey Burger
1927 Stonemanor Drive
Lancaster, PA 17603
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Burger
MTC-00010742
From: Jonathan Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft
(PFJ).
First, the PFJ does not stop Microsoft from operating as a
monopoly. It does not force Microsoft to substansively alter its
structure and marketing plans. The inability of the settlement to
force Microsoft to change its business scructure makes the
settlement pointless. Second, the settlement does not punish
Microsoft for clearly violating anti-trust laws in the past. It
would set a terrible standard if Microsoft was allowed to get away
with its monopolistic and abusive tactics. Finally, the PFJ does
not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for the weak
restrictions it does implement. All in all, the settlement between
Microsoft and the Justice Department is weak and does not fix the
basic problems the suit was brought to correct. I urge you to do
everything in your power to overturn the settlement.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Hill
Brighton, Massachusetts
MTC-00010743
From: csaxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After reading the final judgement I would like to point out a
number of points that are apparently not pin pointed in the
document. What is Microsoft in the business of providing? This may
sound like a stupid question so I will explain in the following
paragraphs.
1. Before you begin to sell software you need a market to sell
the software to... Microsoft has saturated the user market with
their operating system...business users as well as home users.
2. You need to make sure that you can compete in this market, to
be able to write good quality software. Because Microsoft owns the
operating system that most home and business software is hosted on
it already has an unfair advantage since they will know and already
have teams of programmers who have inside information on how to
program certain API's. In fact it is not uncommon for Microsoft to
add the functionality to the operating system and then add user
applications that use that functionality to be released at the same
time. This leaves everyone in the world playing catch-up every time.
3. Trust... I work for a software house who developed
manufacturing software for the Microsoft platform and spent millions
of pounds in R&D to only find out that 3 and a half years down the
line Microsoft bought one of our competitors and now develops
software with them. This left us competing and relying on a
competitor?? Their in house software products all lie in the
following fields
Games
Word processing
Accounting
Manufacturing
Banking
Numerous in house business products...
THEY DON'T WORK WITH PARTNERS SO THEY OWN THE OPERATING SYSTEM
AND THE BUSINESS SYSTEMS??
Would splitting the company into distinct smaller companies be a
bad thing...?
There are a number of other worring points in the document.
1. After they nearly destroyed all competition in the internet
market with internet explorer, why have they not been punished??
Final Judgement should include some sort of punishment so that they
know not do it again...
2. The document does not detail and nail down when competitors
software becomes suitable for replaceing the Microsoft equivalent.
3. Any code to do with the operating system could be deemed
important to the security of the operating system...It would be
[[Page 25352]]
very easy for MS to keep any code they wish away from the eyes of
the TC. 4. The TC seem to be another piece in the RED tape if
they have no power to testify in court.
....Point 4.d
No work product, findings or recommendations by the TC may be
admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any
purpose, and no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in
court or before any other tribunal regarding any matter related to
this Final Judgement. Would this mean that if I went to them with a
complaint about Microsoft practises that I could then not proceed
with the complaint to the courts? I am not sure since the final
judgement does not nail this down...It is very wide open to abuse...
Information is the new monetary system and at the moment
Microsoft is holding a very large piece of this currency?
MTC-00010744
From: Henry S. Williams
To: John Ashcroft,Microsoft Microsoft
Date: 1/13/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to accept the proposed Microsoft anti-trust suite
settlement. Please see my attached letter.
Thank You
Henry S. Williams
1304 Adams Ave.
Toppenish, WA 98948
MTC-00010744-0001
Henry S. Williams
1304 Adams Ave.
Toppenish, WA 98948
E-Mail: stein [email protected]
Phone: 509-865-2915
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing in regard to the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft anti-trust case. As a user of Microsoft products I have
found their products to be of high quality and value priced.
Consumer complaints with Microsoft are few; unfortunately competitor
complaints have driven this ``anti-trust'' matter. As a resident of
Washington State, as well as a stock holder, let me tell you this
unreasonable litigation has cost our State millions of dollars and
my wife and I thousands of dollars. I believe the proposed
settlement is more than fair. I urge you to accept this settlement
and put an end to this long drawn out litigation.
The proposed settlement requires Microsoft to make serious
concessions to its competitors as Windows systems will have to be
made to accept non-Windows software. If fact a government appointed
oversight committee would now monitor Microsoft's business practices
and insure it abide by the settlement terms. Clearly this settlement
is more than just a slap on Microsoft's wrist. The terms should be
more than enough to appease the harshest critics of Microsoft, and
it will certainly increase competition in the technology
marketplace. At this time of National economic uncertainty we need
this great corporation at work. Please support this settlement.
Sincerely,
Henry S. Williams
MTC-00010744--0002
MTC-00010746
From: Shuryl A Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice;
I watch our great country being eaten up by corporations such as
Philip Morris, News media giants, and several other powerful
corporations and the justice system seems to turn their heads. We
can't help but wonder when a company as great as Microsoft, which
has created enormous opportunities and wealth for the American
people and the world, Contributes billions of dollars to some of the
poorest nations in the world, is always brought to task. Is it
because our government and justice system is being control by
corporations more powerful then themselves? My family and many
friends are quite happy with Microsoft and their way of doing
business. We will always support and buy their products no matter
how hard their competitor's try to destroy them. We beg you to
search your conscience and not bend to giant corporate pressures.
Sincerely;
Shuryl A Potter
MTC-00010747
From: Dave fenton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
For the life of me i cannot understand why you wish to punish a
company that has been on the cutting edge of technology, has not
hurt consumers one bit spends billions on research and development,
gives more money away to charities than any other company, and still
you want more. These other states and companies just have sour
grapes and you are playing right into their hands.
A VERY SATISIFED MICROSOFT CUSTOMER
Dave Fenton
MTC-00010748
From: George McLennon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George McLennon
458 Rice Circle
Enterprise, Alabama 36330
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am deeply concerned over further inquiry into the Microsoft
antitrust settlement. I thought this issue had finally been resolved.
This period of public comment is important so that the Justice
Department be advised of the enormous support of the settlement
that exists.
I believe the settlement to be extraordinarily just. The
licensing of Windows at a uniform price will discourage most favored
policies between Microsoft and PC producers. Now producers will not
have to compete against one another to receive the same treatment
from Microsoft. This newfound freedom for producers benefits the
technology industry immensely. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed
not to retaliate against vendors that use or sell non-Microsoft
products.
These benefits will in turn be passed on to consumers. It is
clear that this settlement is in everyone's best interests.
Sincerely,
George McLennon
MTC-00010749
From: jerrystuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For Attorney General Ashcroft.
Jerry Bonow
MTC-00010750
From: Chris Bertelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
I want to urge you to accept the current Microsoft Settlement
and move forward. Your energy is best spent on companies who screw
their employees and customers like Enron. Leave our most successful
USA company alone!
Thanks,
Chris Bertelson
MTC-00010751
From: Adrian Latinak
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adrian Latinak
5 Wildwood Lane
Amherst, NH 03031
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
[[Page 25353]]
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Adrian Latinak
MTC-00010752
From: James White
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James White
11 Sand Fiddler RD.
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
James D. White
MTC-00010753
From: Wm G Fuller
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wm G Fuller
360 CR 259
Iuka, MS 38852
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wm G Fuller
MTC-00010754
From: Barry Younce
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barry Younce
2308 SW Walt Arney Rd
Lenoir, NC 28645
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barry A Younce
MTC-00010755
From: Shah Raza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
755 Birkdale Drive
Fayetteville, Georgia 30215
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to voice my opinion in regards to the Microsoft
settlement issue. I feel that this antitrust dispute has gone on
long enough, and I would like to see a final resolution to this
dispute. I support the settlement that was reached in November, and
I believe this settlement will serve in the best public interest.
Microsoft has agreed to carry out all provisions agreed upon in
this settlement. For example, Microsoft has agreed to license its
Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers
on identical terms and conditions, including price. Microsoft has
also agreed to design future versions of Windows, beginning with an
interim release of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it
easy for computer makers, consumers and software developers to
promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. This settlement is
complete and thorough.
I support this settlement and believe this company should not be
penalized for their success.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Shah Raza
MTC-00010756
From: Don Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached please find a letter for Attorney General John
Ashcroft.
Donald E. Dennis
32727 30th Avenue Southwest
Federal Way, WA 98023-2763
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I'm writing to express my opinion that the antitrust case
against Microsoft has been flawed from the start. Microsoft has not
infringed upon any rights of American people and has just operated
within the confines by which we set up our free market economy. I
have yet to hear complaints from consumers about Microsoft's prices
or practices. In fact I feel that their prices permitted me to have
a PC at home with software that I could afford and most people I
know feel the same way. It seems the only complaints are from their
competitors because they can't keep up.
Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft will be forced to
not enter into any third party agreements for exclusive distribution
rights. That is ridiculous. This is the same as telling Pepsi they
cannot sign an exclusive agreement with Wendy's. Also, creating a
uniform price list with the 20 largest computer makers is
essentially setting up the framework for a monopoly. In fact many of
the concessions create situations that do violate antitrust laws
instead of appeasing them. It's in the best interest of the American
public to end this litigation now. Microsoft is a leading innovator
of technology and we need their growth and leadership to lift the IT
sector out of its current state. Microsoft has done what other
[[Page 25354]]
competitors could not do, but now it's time to let them play it out
in a free market, which is what our society, is based upon, not the
government intervention that has occurred in this case. I urge your
office to make the settlement a reality.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Dennis
MTC-00010757
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsfot Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is disgusting from a consumer
standpoint. It does nothing to improve the climate of competition in
the Operating System/software sector, nor does it contain any
substantive penalty for past anticompetitive activity on the part of
Microsoft. Microsoft's contention that the status quo allows for
improved innovation is patently absurd on its face , and I think
actually this proposed solution will have a continuingly negative
effect on improvement in the software field. MicroSoft through its
``embrace and extend'' policies does not innovate it takes
innovation from competitors, and extends the functionality's with
proprietary additions which block any effective counter to its
extensions. Due to dominance in the market, secondary to
exclusionary marketing practices rather than true innovation
Microsoft has effectively prevented useful, timely and economical
improvements in the market.
Microsoft has in the past and continues in the present to
attempt to block any competitive innovations. They have perverted
standards to their own benefit, and refused to allow others to write
software which will work well with the Windows OS. They provide
crippled renditions of proprietary software included with their
operating system in attempt to drive competitors from the
marketplace. Microsoft have made it virtually impossible to purchase
a consumer grade computer with any operating system other than
windows. My own personal experience has required me to spend over
two thousand dollars during the past 5 years for software that I
have never used, and will not use in the future. By requiring that
peripheral companies to only develop drivers for the Windows OS I am
prevented from using many pieces of hardware that would make my
computers more functional.
I think the proposed solution should be dismissed out of hand.
It does nothing to protect consumers and the computer industry in
general from the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. It contains no
real penalty for MS and encourages continued anticompetitive
practices on Microsoft's part.
Jim
James Mellema, CRNA
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of
servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in
peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains sit lightly upon you.--Samuel Adams
MTC-00010758
From: Cindy Kasin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to express my opinion that the settlement reached
between Microsoft and the DOJ and other states should be approved.
The settlement is fair, and it is certainly in the public interest
to bring this matter to an end. The uncertainty and anxiety the
litigation is adding to generally uncertain economic times will only
stifle innovation in the marketplace.
The only people who stand to gain by prolonging this matter are
disgruntled competitors and their highly paid lawyers and lobbyists.
It's time to get on with it.
Cynthia D. Kasin
MTC-00010759
From: Ned and Suzy Cheely
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:33pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
Please settle this case and get onto more serious problems! We,
the taxpayers, through the government, have spent enough time and
money on this case. It is time to move on. Please support the
settlement as proposed by Microsoft and the Bush Administration. We
do.
Thank you.
Suzy Cheely
9 Harrop Parrish
Williamsburg, VA 23188
MTC-00010760
From: Joe and Pam Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This case is a colossal waste of every tax payer's money. It's
clear that no settlement can be reached that doesn't pass muster
with California's lobbying interests. The Justice department should
spend it's resources going after terrorists and companies that are
truly damaging this country, like Enron.
Joseph M. Sherman
Resident of Washington State
MTC-00010761
From: Louis Parks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the Microsoft settlement. As a consumer and an
American citizen I am sickened that this case ever happened and that
it has gone on for so long. Settle the case, and let us and
Microsoft move on with our lives.
Louis Parks
Chief Technology Officer
Adsoft Design, Inc.
(801) 627-6300
2404 Washington Blvd.
Ogden, UT 84401
MTC-00010762
From: Adam Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a java developer I am extremely worried about what is going
on with the settlement, especially when you consider that it hasn't
deterred Microsoft from anti-competitive behavior. An example of
this is the security restriction they are putting on the java
virtual machine on the Windows XP operating system. There is no
logical reason to take the actions it has, when you consider that
sun has spent many years developing java security, and the current
security model is far more secure than Microsoft's competitor to
java applets, ActiveX. Sun Microsystems pioneered the internet while
Microsoft was still asleep...they developed a great language for
distributed computing and really assisted in the development of the
internet by providing a lot of software solutions free. The internet
would not be what it is today without applets...think about that,
all distributed computing through web browsers in the early days of
the internet was accomplished through applets, a lot of companies
that drive the US economy today (Macromedia, QuickTime) began their
lifecycles with java. Now we are in real danger of loosing that
technology, just like what happened to Netscape. It is very
disconcerting that companies that give back so much to the community
and advance communication mediums for the benefit of all society are
allowed to be wiped out by a company that does none of those things.
If you do not take sterner actions against Microsoft, you are
sending a message to all developers saying that it's no use for them
to give back to the community with the technology they create...it
will be a sad day when software developers are too scared to do
something that benefits the community (e.g. java technology from
sun, cookies from Netscape), because they risk having they're
livelihood destroyed by a large monopoly. This is not a small case,
it has wide reaching, long term implications for what is becoming
one of the major communication mediums in the world. Your decision
here will effect global communication for decades to come, please, I
beg of you, make the right decision and release Microsoft's hold on
the development community, allow everyone in the world to benefit
from the internet and not just one company, the world will thank you
Sincerely
Adam Jenkins
Senior Team Leader
Tralee Software Pty Ltd
MTC-00010763
From: Ty Conner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ty Conner
506 Westmoreland Pl
Jackson, TN 38301
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech
[[Page 25355]]
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ty Conner
MTC-00010764
From: Mark Dubosky
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Dubosky
1312 Chattahoochee Circle
Roswell, GA 30075
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mark Dubosky
MTC-00010765
From: Ozie Christian
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ozie Christian
3590 Cortez Dr.
Pensacola, Fl 32503-3116
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ozie Christian
MTC-00010766
From: William Hildebrand
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Hildebrand
1420 Whitetail Court
Hermitage, TN 37076
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
William Hildebrand
MTC-00010767
From: Ray Trees
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Trees
150 Avery St.
Walla Walla, WA 99362
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a
[[Page 25356]]
serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ray Trees Jr.
MTC-00010768
From: William Capella
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Capella
9 Marlon Pond Rd.
Hamilton SQuare, NJ 08690
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
William M Capella
MTC-00010769
From: Jim Vaughan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Vaughan
1114 S Juanita Av
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Vaughan
MTC-00010770
From: James Saville
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Saville
313 Granada Drive
Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
This case should never have been brought--it is a simple case of
competitors unable to compete because they are not smart enough--
consumers have never been harmed!!! Upwards of 60% of Americans
thought the federal government should not have broken up Microsoft.
If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft can get back
into the business of innovating and creating better products for
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
James Saville
MTC-00010771
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
I firmly believe that the suit against Microsoft was unfair. I
think Microsoft has been a boon to the Internet and to computer
users all over the world. It was responsible for setting a standard
that has made communication between users easier. As a rank amature
on the computer, I at least have found that I can find employment
and communicate with my friends with reasonable ease. I liken this
to being an American from the west who can converse with a
DownEaster or a person from the deep south with only occasional
confusion as to terminology, as compared to a person from America
trying to communicate with a German or Japanese or Sudanese where
the language is so different as to be incomprehensible to me.
Furthermore, the federal govenment, which brought suit against
Microsoft, has reached an agreement. As a taxpayer I helped fund
that suit (even though I did not wish to). Now some of the states
wish to impose a different outcome in the suit, although it has
already been settled to my satisfaction, and the plaintiff, using my
funds to pursue the action. Microsoft has already paid the price
through the federal settlement and through the cost to defend
itself. The latter alone was sufficient punishment to address issues
perceived only by a handful as being egregious.
Again, I did not think there were grounds for a suit in the
beginning. In our society those who put forth the most effort and
resources generally succeed the best anyway. This is the way free
enterprise should work, and this is what Microsoft has done.
Microsoft has provided a service by making it easier to use
technology. I remember years back when there were so many different
programs and operating systems that only the few could succeed in
going from one to another. Now, with some standardization, but with
plenty of options, most of us are comfortable with entering new
employment or enjoyment with a minimum of training. The savings in
money is inestimable.
Please, stop this nonsense.
A taypayer:
Judith F. Jacobs
1880 Austin
Gardnerville, NV 89410
[email protected]
MTC-00010772
From: Arnold Kraft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 7:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement case 30 Holly Circle Weston, MA 02493-
1455 January 13, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft United States
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Like most who follow technology news, I am pleased that the
Department of Justice and Microsoft have reached a settlement
agreement. Three years of litigation have proven to be taxing on the
entire IT industry. The settlement calls for Microsoft to renounce
its ability to retaliate against its competitors, yet, its
competitors retain their right to retaliate against Microsoft in the
open market. This action may prove to decrease competition within
the software industry, which will inevitably hurt the consumer.
The Department of Justice owes the American IT industry and
Microsoft an end to this suit. Prolonging the suit can only serve to
further harm the American consumer. Please accept the settlement
now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arnold Kraft
Arnold A. Kraft
30 Holly Circle
Weston, MA 02493-1455
Tel: 781 235 0560
Fax: 781 235 4345
Cell: 617 413 5426
MTC-00010773
From: chris berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 7:20pm
[[Page 25357]]
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
HONORABLE JUDGE AND AG OF CALIFORNIA;
AS A LONG-TIME MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY, I AM
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE US GOVT AND
MICROSOFT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT HAS A
NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES--NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT
MICROSOFT IS REALLY NOT PUNISHED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY FOR PAST
ABUSES. MAYBE EVEN WORSE--UNDER THE PROPOSAL IT APPEARS THAT WE IN
THE INDUSTRY--ESPECIALLY US SMALLER PLAYERS
WILL HAVE TO RELY ON MS EVEN MORE...AND THAT IS TRULY
FRIGHTENING. I RUN A SMALL SOFTWARE COMPANY BASED HERE IN THE BAY
AREA. BUT NOT ONLY IS THE PROPOSED DEAL FRIGHTENING TO COMPANIES
LIKE MINE, I BELIEVE IT RAISES SERIOUS ISSUES FOR THE ENTIRE
AMERICAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY...AND OUR NATION'S ECONOMY AS WELL. I
HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE THE
PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND FIND IF IT IS TRULY IN THE 'BEST INTERESTS'
OF CONSUMERS. IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW HAVING ONE MONOPOLISTIC PROVIDER
OF THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CONSUMER SOFTWARE IS IN OUR COUNTRY'S BEST
INTERESTS. AND AS MS HAS CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY SHOWN--IF THEY OWN
95% OF THE MARKET FOR THE OS--THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
I HOPE THAT YOU WILL STAND UP TO MICROSOFT.
THANK YOU.
CHRIS BERGER
MTC-00010774
From: Margaret (038) Doug Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Someone want's tohave the internet just like the telephone
system when the Feds got through with it a few years age. Lets
settle this as quick and as -painless as possible so we can get on
with our lives.
MTC-00010775
From: Robin Thomas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robin Thomas
9061 East Shorewood Dr.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robin Thomas
MTC-00010776
From: Dave Melvin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dave Melvin
1633 River Birch Ave
Oviedo, FL 32765-7962
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dave Melvin
MTC-00010777
From: Wai Seen Teh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wai Seen Teh
415 Namahana Street
Honolulu, HI 96815
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
[[Page 25358]]
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
The Wai Seen
MTC-00010778
From: Douglas Whitmarsh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Whitmarsh
727 whiting Street
Hanover, MA 02339
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Douglas Whitmarsh
MTC-00010779
From: David Beatson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Beatson
PO Box 1052
Shelter Island, NY 11964-1052
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David R Beatson
MTC-00010780
From: John Hightower
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Hightower
15 Butterfly Cove
Little Rock, AE 72210
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
It is time for this anti-consumer trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom, when this dinosaur is
laid to rest.
Then Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and
creating better products for consumers, and stop wasting tons of
time and other valuable resources on litigation. It's their
competitors who can't make it in the marketplace, not the end users
and ordinary people who have to rely on their computers to be
productive, who benefit from this anti-trust, anti-consumer exercise
in poor government.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers, not making it possible for other businesses
to keep making products that people don't want and won't buy. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of successful corporations, people who actually use the
software--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick
the winners and losers. With the chains off the high-tech industry,
more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies, instead of funding to the tune of
hundreds of thousands or more dollars the parties and politicians
who represent these market-loser businesses.
Sincerely,
John Hightower
MTC-00010782
From: Ryan Ware
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ryan Ware
233 Willow Lake Blvd
St Paul, MN 55110
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
Microsoft unfairly uses its products to leverage market share.
Make them open Office up--file formats, possibly a linux version.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ryan Ware
MTC-00010783
From: Jeff Naber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Naber
10111 S. College Place
Tulsa, OK 74137
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jeff Naber
MTC-00010784
From: John Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Smith
1104 Cara Drive
Largo, FL 33771
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John C. Smith
MTC-00010785
From: Colin Lowenberg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Colin Lowenberg
5123 Birdwood
Houston, TX 77096
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
[[Page 25359]]
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
Although I was wholeheartedly content when one lawyer attacking
our newly elected president was finally taken off the payroll and
removed from the Microsoft trial, I also wholeheartedly agree with
the views shared below. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers'
dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to
investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial,
and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers
will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally
breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Colin Lowenberg
MTC-00010786
From: David Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 9:10pm
Subject: Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a student at Boston University, and I am upset about the
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft
(PFJ).
First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards.
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to
overturn this settlement.
Sincerely,
David W. Hill
Brighton, Massachusetts
MTC-00010787
From: donnar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 9:17pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
21902 96th Avenue Southeast
Snohomish, Washington 98296
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
We are writing you today to voice our opinions in regards to the
Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. This case has
gone on long enough. It is time to embrace this settlement and let
this company get back to doing business. We have more important
things to worry about. Microsoft has agreed to carry out all terms
of this agreement. Microsoft did not get off easy. This strict
settlement contains terms that go well beyond the original terms of
the lawsuit. For example, Microsoft will now share information about
the internal workings of Windows with competitors, and it will use a
uniform price list when licensing out Windows. Microsoft has agreed
to these terms so as to hasten this process.
Again, we support Microsoft and this settlement in this dispute.
During these difficult economic times, we must focus all our energy
in bolstering our lagging economy. Please do your part by supporting
this settlement.
Sincerely,
Maurice & Donaleen Ravensberg
MTC-00010788
From: Connie Wickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case with Microsoft in a fair manner. There
has been great damage to our economy and to investors and consumers.
Please do not squelch innovation.
Thank you.
Connie
MTC-00010790
From: Dennis Lutz II
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Lutz II
22526 Savannah Heights
Von Ormy, TX 78073-3009
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating
and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting
valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating better
goods and offering superior services to consumers. With government
out of the business of stifling progress and tying the hands of
corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will
once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the
reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dennis Lutz II
MTC-00010791
From: Alex Tsukernik
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex Tsukernik
184 Cabot St. Apt 3
Newton, MA 02458
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alex Tsukernik
MTC-00010792
From: Jason Prell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Prell
350 Cayman Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
[[Page 25360]]
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jason Prell
MTC-00010793
From: Georg Bolch
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Georg Bolch
P O Box 528
Suquamish, WA 98392-0528
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Georg G Bolch
MTC-00010794
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 10:13pm
Subject: (no subject)
GENTLEMEN:
THE JUDGE IN THIS LAST DECISION OF THE MICROSFT AGREEMENT STATES
THAT THEIR OFFER WAS TOO ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THEM AND TOO COMPETITIVE
FOR APPLE COMPUTER. SINCE WHEN DOES A JUDGE RULE ON COMPETITION
BETWEEN TWO CORPORATE ENTITIES. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT BUSINESS WAS
ALL ABOUT. WHAT DID APPLE EVER CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN
POOR AND NEEDY AREAS. HAVE THE COURTS IN OUR COUNTRY TURNED SO
LIBERAL AND AGAINST BIG AND SUCCESSFUL CORPORATIONS.
THE JUDGE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT A BILLIOIN DOLLARS WAS ENOUGH-IS
THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE A WEALTHY COMPANY? ARE THESE JUDGES ,
POLITICIANS AND STATES ATTY GENERALS TRYI NG TO ULTIMATELY BREAK BIG
BUSINESS.OR JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE
RESOURCES
DISAPPOINTED AND CONCERNED
MTC-00010795
From: charles varano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement is fair & equitable and agree that we
need to move on with this issue.
MTC-00010796
From: Goldberg, Adrian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a developer of business software using a variety of
technologies and platforms I view with consternation the continuing
and growing market monopoly by Microsoft. I believe it to in the
best interests of the US IT companies and IT companies worldwide
that the US government drastically inhibit Microsofts ability to
dictate and control software usage worldwide.
Adrian Goldberg
GIS Consultant
Sinclair Knight Merz
Melbourne, Australia
MTC-00010797
From: Jim Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 10:45pm
Subject: Tunney Comments on PFJ in US v Microsoft
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division us Department of Justice 601 D Street NW, Suite
1200 Washington, DC 20530 [email protected]>
Ms. Hesse:
I am submitting these comments by email since the Department is
as affected by recent events as other governmental agencies. I am
writing to comment on the proposed Final Judgment in US v Microsoft.
``[T]he suit has been a futile exercise if the Government proves
a violation but fails to secure a remedy adequate to redress it.''--
US v E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. The proposed Final Judgment
proposed to the Court by the United States Department of Justice and
Microsoft fails to serve the public interest in too many ways to be
an acceptable resolution to the case. While serving the public
interest must be the primary goal of any resolution to this case, I
note in passing that a crucial requirement of any system of justice
must be that lawbreakers do not reap the rewards of their
misconduct. The proposed Final Judgment fails to meet that goal as
it is entirely forward-looking, albeit weakly so.
First, the proposed Final Judgment does not contain ``any
admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law.'' This is
unacceptable. Microsoft has broken the law. That is a fact decided
by the District Court, upheld by the Appellate Court, and one which
any resolution of this case must explicitly state. Independent civil
proceedings will rely on the outcome of this case and it is critical
that a declaration of lawbreaking be present.
The restrictions placed on Microsoft's business practices by the
proposed Final Judgment appear at first glance to be sound but are
so riddled with exceptions as to be effectively meaningless. With
just a few minutes' thought, I was able to think of sidesteps by
Microsoft that would neuter the restrictions and yet fall within the
purview of the proposed Final Judgment. I am a layman; I can only
imagine the ease with which Microsoft's legal staff can think of
sidesteps--especially when you consider that they wrote much of this
proposed Final Judgment. For example, Microsoft is not required to
``document, disclose, or license'' anything that would purportedly
hinder security or rights management. That's a gaping hole which
would allow essentially all networking and multimedia protocols used
in products folded into Windows to be completely undocumented. With
the release of Windows 2000, Microsoft claimed that they had
included Kerberos authentication mechanisms. They used empty data
fields in an undisclosed manner to extend the Kerberos specification
in a manner to provide authentication services between Windows
servers and Windows clients which were denied to non-Windows
clients. When pressed for details, the company asserted that their
modifications were security-related and refused to disclose them.
That conduct is still permitted by this proposed Final Judgment.
Further, the proposed Final Judgment appears to be totally ignorant
of the free software movement (sometimes called ``open source'').
Neither term appears in the document, nor in the Competitive Impact
Statement released later. Nearly all the proposed Final Judgment's
provisions are predicated on commercial interests representing the
only means of competition. Free software is not as a first principle
about
[[Page 25361]]
making money or gathering market share. It is a philosophical
perspective that software can and should be shared so that it can be
improved through the the ability and right of its users to correct
errors, add features, or provide superior implementations of
algorithms. It is important to understand that by ``sharing'' I do
not refer to the violations of intellectual property law best
exemplified by the Napster service. This sharing is a decision made
by the original programmer which permits or even requires
redistribution of the source code (the human-readable information
which is turned into the ones-and-zeroes of computers to be run as a
program). The best known examples of this movement are the Linux
kernel and the GNU tools that together provide a computing platform
which can run on the same hardware as Windows and which provides a
functional equivalent to the Unix operating system. Since the
software in a Linux-based computer is largely written by
noncommercial interests, the programmers would fail to meet the
``business viability'' requirement for licensing Microsoft
intellectual property needed to allow interoperability--said
requirement to be ascertained by none other than Microsoft, in
another of this proposed Final Judgment's absurdities. Also, since
many of the free software programmers are hobbyists, they lack the
financial resources to meet licensing terms that companies like Sun
Microsystems or Apple Computer would doubtless find to be
``reasonable and nondiscriminatory''. Given that Linux-based systems
represent the greatest competitive threat to Microsoft's desktop
operating system monopoly right now, leaving the free software
programmers and their software methodology out of the judgment
throws away the single best option to restore competition to the
marketplace.
The aspect of this proposed Final Judgment that most fails the
``sniff test'' is the compliance and enforcement section. For
starters, the Technical Committee is a wholly inadequate enforcement
mechanism. The fact that one of the three members is to be chosen by
Microsoft and one chosen in part by that member means that half the
committee will be of Microsoft's choosing. Prisoners do not get to
select their jailers and Microsoft should not have any say in its
overseers. The fact that such a farcical arrangement could even be
suggested stems from the failure of the proposed Final Judgment to
acknowledge expressly that Microsoft has broken the law. The
enforcement mechanisms read like a partnership agreement, not the
lettering of a lawbreaking monopolist. Once selected, the Technical
Committee's effectiveness is almost nonexistent. Three people, even
with a staff to assist them, are not capable of auditing the tens of
millions of lines of software that make up Windows and the
Middleware produced by Microsoft. They cannot interview the
thousands of Microsoft employees. They are also to be gagged from
making public statements about their activities, a shame when simple
public statements about Microsoft's conduct can influence that
conduct. Staggeringly, the result of their work is not even
admissible in enforcement proceedings! Of what possible value is
this committee?
Finally, I object to the termination stipulation of the proposed
Final Judgment. This wretched agreement will be in effect for five
years, with the promise of up to two more years if Microsoft fails
to comply with its terms. I find myself compelled to ask what
reasonable person could refrain from paroxysms of belly-laughter at
the idea that the solution to the failure of a five-year agreement
is to extend that same agreement for two more years. The further
damage to competition and the public that Microsoft could wreak by
the end of that five-year agreement is almost incalculable. It took
the company less than five years to annihilate not just Netscape but
the commercial market for web browsers. Now that they have set their
sights on messaging, home video games, multimedia such as audio and
video, online shopping, personal video recorders, authentication
services and more, how can the Department consider allowing the
degree of autonomy that the proposed Final Judgment would?
I have barely scratched the surface of my objections to this
proposed Pinal Judgment; I trust that others will address the
shortcomings I have left out. I would like to take a moment to
mention the utterly disgraceful manner in which the United States
government has betrayed the American people by throwing in the towel
in US v Microsoft. After securing a thundering victory in the
District Court and then accomplishing the coup of having that
victory largely upheld by a unanimous decision of one of the
country's more business-friendly Appellate Courts, settling the case
with this pathetic excuse for a Final Judgment is contemptible. The
career of the head of antitrust at Justice, Mr. James, is a history
of justification for anticompetitive conduct and Attorney General
Ashcroft is occupied with the September 11 attacks on the United
States, but they are officials of the Department of Justice with
obligations to the American people. The proposed Final Judgment
comes nowhere near adequately discharging those obligations.
The Competitive Impact Statement required as a justification by
the proposed Final Judgment has been released and it is as
unenlightening as one would expect given the agreement that prompted
it. University of Baltimore antitrust expert Robert Lande put it
best when he said ``I think Charles James is going to spend the next
30 years of his life saying `I didn't sell out to Microsoft.''' The
Competitive Impact Statement is as telling in what it doesn't say as
in what it does say. The Department's repetition throughout the
Competitive Impact Statement that the proposed Final Judgment
restores competition and serves the public interest cannot make that
statement true. Its recounting of the history of the case is
accurate. Would that the actual impact statement were so. In truth,
it reads as little more than a restating of the proposed Final
Judgment with a bit more plain English and a bit less ``legalese''.
At least, it reads that way until the end, when the Department tries
vainly to justify this unconditional surrender. Their reasoning
essentially boils down to ``better a horrible conclusion today than
a good one in two years.'' I take particular exception to this
statement: ``The remedies contained in the Proposed Final Judgment
are not only consistent with the relief the United States might have
obtained in litigation, but they have the
advantages of immediacy and certainty.'' That is blatantly false.
The District Court's ordered relief was far stricter than this
settlement and the Appellate Court was quite clear that their reason
for vacating that order was to preserve the appearance of
impartiality. The newly assigned judge was expressly permitted to
consider that very same ordered relief. The proposed Final Judgment
may have :'immediacy and certainty'' but it is certain that
Microsoft will immediately resume Business As Usual--to the
detriment of American citizens, businesses, governments. Given the
feature-set of Windows XP, one could make a compelling argument that
the company has already resumed business as usual.
The Department of Justice had an opportunity to restore
competition to an exciting industry that has been hobbled for too
long by Microsoft's monopoly abuses. You had the support of two
courts and you have come back with a settlement which isn't even a
slap on the wrist: it's a loving caress. Shame on you all. You have
a chance at redemption, however: withdraw the proposed Final
Judgment. Return to Judge Kollar-Kotelly for the penalty hearings
ordered by the Appellate Court when it disqualified Judge Jackson
from rehearing that stage of the trial. Lay the evidence before her.
Include Microsoft's actions since Judge Jackson issued his Findings
of Fact, such as Microsoft's incorporation into Windows XP of
multimedia players, instant messengers, and online shopping and let
this case be ended by a judicial order that can only surpass the
proposed Final Judgment in effectiveness.
Let me conclude this letter by reiterating my key points of
objection to the government's proposed Final Judgment: it permits
the monopolist to retain the fruits of its illegal acts. It provides
no incentive for the monopolist to reform its business practices and
thereby come into compliance with the requirements and restrictions
of the Sherman Act. It ignores past harm to competition and does
nothing to constrain future harm. It is in every way a betrayal of
the Department's responsibility to the nation and is exceptionally
painful given the smashing success the Department had in proving its
case before the Court.
Thank you for your time.
James L. Hill, PhD
105 Azure Drive
Los Alamos, NM 87544
505-670-4280
[email protected]>
MTC-00010798
From: Henrik Bruun
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henrik Bruun
2557 Bishop Estates Road
Jacksonville, FL 32259
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25362]]
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Henrik
MTC-00010799
From: gary keramidas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
gary keramidas
18722 dale ave
allen park, mi 48101
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
gary j keramidas
MTC-00010800
From: Shane Kelley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shane Kelley
10628 Gardenwood Road
Orlando, FL 32837
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Shane Kelley
MTC-00010801
From: Craig Catapano
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Craig Catapano
8912 North Lamar Blvd Suite 214
Austin, Tx 78753
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better
products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on
litigation. Competition means creating better goods and offering
superior services to consumers. With government out of the business
of stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick
the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-
tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new
and competitive products and technologies. It's time to Drop this
none-sense and move ON! There is no ``Monopoly'', move on to
something more important...US Healthcare.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Craig M Catapano
MTC-00010802
From: Sean Phillipson
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/13/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The remedies outlined in the current proposed agreement don't go
nearly far enough to reign in the monopolistic practices of
Microsoft. Microsoft has already violated the spirit of even the
proposed remedy, and previous findings, by including even more
applications in their new OS (Windows XP). With every application
they include, whole software markets are put out of business. I also
thought that any remedy should deprive Microsoft of any gains made
by the monopolistic behavior. Microsoft made tens of billions of
dollars from this behavior, why do they get to keep that money? Why
have I never heard of any effort to estimate of how much money was
made through Microsoft's monopolistic behavior so a real punishment
can be imposed?
The remedy proposal of the 9 remaining states is far better and
should prevent the behavior that got Microsoft in court. That is the
idea behind this remedy, I hope. Companies are still afraid to anger
Microsoft. There are subtle ways in which Microsoft can ``get even''
with a company for favoring another OS. And now I see in the news
that Microsoft actually has a program in place to kill Linux.
Microsoft has agreed to the DOJ settlement because it still leaves
it with plenty of ``Monopolistic'' opportunity and loop holes.
As a software engineer I can tell you that Microsoft can modify
it's OS code to do the things that the 9 hold out states suggest.
They are flat dishonest if they say they can't. Every version of
Unix/Linux/MacOS cleanly separates the OS services from any
applications. A browser is a application and should never be
embedded in the OS. These are smart guys, tell them they have to do
something and they can do it. They may not like it, but they can do
it.
Thank you
Doug Phillipson
Las Vegas Nevada
MTC-00010803
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25363]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 11:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
it is time to go forward and stop the endless litigation
[email protected]
MTC-00010804
From: Art Hilgart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I urge the breakup of the MS operating system and applications
into two firms, along with compulsory licensing of all MS software,
now and in the future.
Patents are intended to reward temporarily inventions not
obvious to others. They are not grants of permanent monopoly, nor
should they be. Academics and journalists rushing to defend
Microsoft and disparage the Justice Department display stronger
ideologies than memories. Bill Gates is not an innovator serving
millions of computer users as he and his defenders would have us
believe, but the incredibly lucky exploiter of a monopoly he has
kited into scores of billions of dollars for himself. When the
personal computer was no bigger than a breadbox, IBM saw little
future for the device and entered the market with assemblies of
purchased innards. To run programs, a computer needs a controlling
operating underbase, and when Bill Gates and Paul Allen falsely told
IBM that they had such a system, IBM thoughtlessly contracted with
them to license it for their desktop diversion. Gates and Allen then
proceeded to buy one of the many such programs that had been written
by hobbyists and others. With the help of his attorney father, young
Gates acquired Q-DOS from its hapless inventor for a few dollars of
his father's money and changed its name from ?Quick-and-Dirty-
Operating System? to ?Microsoft Disc Operating System?, or MS-DOS.
This cloud no bigger than a man's hand consisted of two programs?
COMMAND.COM and CONFIG.SYS? with a combined size of less than 100kb.
As it happened, IBM salesmen were as adept at selling PCs to
business offices as they had been at selling electric typewriters,
and DOS became the industry standard Because IBM did not buy the
system outright and because intellectual property law confers a
monopoly on the system and its interminable upgrades, Gates now has
control of most personal computers in the world.
Nearly all application programs are written for DOS or its
successor, Windows, so buyers of IBM-type computers must also buy a
Microsoft operating system, and since most computers are now based
on an MS system, application software designers must write Windows-
based programs if they are to sell many copies. Others are free to
design non-Microsoft operating systems, but these are useless in the
absence of applications, and applications won?t be written for
systems not already in wide use. Because of this circularity and
constant upgrades conferring perpetuity to MS patents and
copyrights, Bill Gates is the proud possessor of an unshakeable
monopoly.
This is enough for antitrust attention, but there is more. I
recently bought a new custom-built computer from Gateway 2000. In
addition to the ineluctable Windows, the package included Microsoft
Excel, Word, and Explorer. When I told the consultant I wanted the
WordPerfect/Quattro Pro/Netscape suite, I was told that Gateway's
contract with Microsoft required that they sell and install these
Microsoft applications with the necessary Windows. Even were I to
take the Microsoft programs and pay extra for the WordPerfect suite,
they could not sell it or install it. I bought the WordPerfect
programs directly from Corel and installed them myself, but most
consumers probably just use the Microsoft programs that come with
new computers, extending Microsoft's control into the applications
field.
Gates did not write DOS, and his staff copied the Windows user
interface from Apple. The Microsoft programs I had to buy but do not
use are not marvelous innovations, they too are imitations. Word was
copied from WordPerfect, Explorer from Netscape, Excel from Lotus,
and Money from Quicken. The dominant shares that the Microsoft
ripoffs now command in the applications field are entirely due to
Gates's use of the essential Windows to fob off his imitations as
part of a bundle. The success of Windows is not due to its elegance.
The bloated, slow, and unwieldy system continually requires purchase
of bigger and faster hardware. There are innumerable bugs and
customer service is mediocre and expensive. A common ?solution? to a
problem is a recommendation to back up everything externally, unload
all programs, reformat the hard drive, and start over. Of course,
upgrades will eventually correct the errors? but carry a new
generation of bugs. Octopus like, moreover, Windows has a tendency
to sabotage rival software and reset configurations to use MS
programs as defaults.
Gates and his cheering section bemoan that the Justice
Department is about to cause irreparable harm to millions of
computer users. Since Microsoft has contributed approximately
nothing to the nation besides a fiendishly clever business plan, the
consumers don?t need to worry. I urge the breakup of the MS
operating system and applications into two firms, along with
compulsory licensing of all MS software, now and in the future.
Patents are intended to reward temporarily inventions not
obvious to others. They are not grants of permanent monopoly, nor
should they be.
Art Hilgart
[email protected]
MTC-00010805
From: Greg Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I like many I know have been viewing the Microsoft litigation
with a whole range of emotions. First disbelief that the government
was seriously taking on such a powerful force. Next observing some
judicial success and what appeared to be a serious effort to right
an obvious wrong, I was very encouraged. With the reversals since
the elections and many publicized Microsoft donations, my skepticism of
my elected officials returned. However, nothing can compare to
outrage I felt when I heard the Microsoft's settlement proposal.
A proposal which is so obviously meant squash what little
competition it has in the education market. The audacity is
something I should have suspected Microsoft of. What baffles me is
why, when proposed, the instant response was not ``Microsoft, you
just don't get it?'' There are many good options which would create
competition in the software industry. Forcing Microsoft to spend
money it earns from overpriced software we are forced to purchase on
anything seems absurd. How is that solution, it's hardly even a
penalty, Microsoft can charge anything it likes for it's products.
It already charges several orders of magnitude more than the
industry for it's mediocre products. How about some obvious
solutions, obvious to anyone who has been in the computer business
for a while, like Microsoft.
How about JAVA. Force Microsoft to include Sun's VM with Windows
and make it really work. Or how about ``Open Doc.'' This would truly
put the software industry in full motion. Microsoft was so worried
about this software at one time it had to force Apple to discontinue
it with drastic action. I suspect a breakup may also bring the
software industry out in force with new and useful products. I hope
you can see through Microsoft's fog of absurd statements and massive
political contributions to do some thing to eliminate the vise
Microsoft has on the software industry.
Greg Smith
Westmont College Webmaster
MTC-00010806
From: Mark Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The US Department of Justice is wrong to attack Microsoft. Their
grounds of attack allege that Microsoft included Internet Explorer
with their Windows Operating System. The DOJ claims this harmed
consumers because it stifled competition. I strongly disagree.
Microsoft did not harm me in any way, in fact it more than met my
needs in an efficient manner. In University, as in work, there are
deadlines to meet and time is a precious commodity. Computers are a
tool which can greatly assist in getting things done in a faster,
more efficient way.
One thing I did not like about computers is the amount of time
and effort it took to install programs. When I needed a report
quickly, it took precious time to evaluate and purchase the
necessary software. The technical process of installing software was
not as simple (as it is today). Microsoft was able to answer this
issue by bundling. They sold the O.S, the web browser together,
which was exactly what I was looking for. I liked the idea of buying
a new PC with all the software included. The US DOJ directly told
Microsoft this is wrong, and indirectly is telling me that my
personal desires are actually harming others. The result of these
actions? Instead of getting a solution I want, I will only be
allowed to have software
[[Page 25364]]
solutions which are government approved. I
will no longer have the choice which was available before.
I can make my own choices about what is good for me. I will not
purchase products that do not meet my needs. The DOJ seems intent on
removing the choice of packaged software, and is attacking Microsoft
for the 'unlawful' process of meeting this desire.
Also, The idea of charging microsoft $1,000,000 per day seems
like extortion. I endeavour to see the DOJ to put an end to what
appears to be nothing more than an attack on a prosperous company.
(Prosperity being a key factor that differentiates America from
almost every other country on Earth.)
Thank you for your time,
Mark Stephens CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010807
From: John Muckleroy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:02pm
Subject: U.S. Government persuing Microsoft
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
I think that it is downright sinful the way the government is
persuing Microsoft. I see it as just another case of jealousy on the
part of the competion, with the government acting as ``Big Brother''
to keep the bully from getting any bigger. We consumers don't need
``protection'' from Microsoft. We come closer to needing protection
from the Government. I think that there is a lot of truth to that
line I heard some time ago, and it goes like this. ``If Bill Gates
had contributed more money to Bill Clinton's political war chest,
there would not be a lawsuit in progress at this time. The states
that are backing this suit are just looking for money, and that is
all there is to it. They didn't deserve any money from the Tabocco
settlement, and they don't deserve any from this.
MTC-00010808
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:12pm
Subject: Comments
Microsoft continues a pattern of anticompetitive practices
designed to thwart competition on the merits, to deprive customers
of a choice between alternative technologies and products, and to
exclude Microsoft's competitors from the general marketplace. The
initial suit concerned the monopolistic practice of Microsoft, to
purposefully do whatever it took to make sure significant market
participants distributed and used Microsoft's product instead of a
competitors--including paying some customers, and using its unique
control over Windows to induce others to do so Microsoft has made
clear that, unless restrained, it will continue to misuse its
operating system monopoly to artificially exclude competition and
deprive customers of a free choice. As Paul Maritz, Microsoft's
Group Vice President in charge of the Platforms Group, was quoted in
the New York Times: ``We are going to cut off their air supply.
Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free.''
Since the release of the '95 OS version, through to the XP OS
release, Microsoft's conduct has not changed. Where any competitor
appears to threaten Microsoft, either through outright purchase, or
by 'giving away' similar functionality artificially bundled with the
OS, Microsoft strives to prevent market alternatives to Microsoft's
products from gaining any foothold in the general marketplace.
Microsoft's conduct regarding competitor products has been and, if
not restrained, will continue to stifle competition, to extend and
to maintain Microsoft's Windows operating system monopoly.
MTC-00010809
From: Kevin Ulland
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin Ulland
6453 139th Place NE #41
Redmond, WA 98052
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. I fully support the settlement between the nine
states, the DOJ and Microsoft. I don't believe Microsoft is a
monopoly that has abused it's power, and Microsoft hasn't ever hurt
me, the CONSUMER. But that's not what's at issue here.
I believe that the settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft agreed
to is fine. It not only tackles the anti-trust ``violations'' but
also addresses the market and Microsoft's role therein. I am happy
to see that nine of the eighteen states have signed on, but I am
frustrated by the remaining states who wish to proceed with the
trial. I have a question about those nine states.
I live in Washington State. I am happy with Microsoft, I like
Windows XP and it's features. I use Passport and love the fact that
it's integrated into the OS. It saves me time! I love Internet
Explorer. It renders beautiful web sites, and being a web developer,
it's a great application. Netscape is non-compliant with the standards
and mis-interprets code all of the time, creating ugly sites and
interfaces. I DON'T want Microsoft to stop innovating. I want the
next version of Windows to be even more rich with features. If
Massachusetts or California go into the hearings in March and get
extra sanctions or limitations applied to the deal with Microsoft,
those limitations had better not effect me here in Washington, or
any of the other 41 states! Just because California is listening to
the special interest groups from Silicon Valley and Microsoft
competitors and NOT it's consumers, that should not affect me in my
state. I remember my US history, and I remember that we all started
out as separate states, like little nations, and we created a
federal government to over see national issues. But laws passed in
California do not apply in any other state, and I am hoping that a
ruling against Microsoft for California, or the other nine states
only applies in those states. If California law can't affect me here
in Washington, why should a ruling for California affect me as well?
Will a ruling for the nine states affect the other 41?
Please answer this question, because I think it is vitally
important that as a consumer I know what is going to happen to
Microsoft and the software I use in my life and work. It is wholly
unacceptable that these nine states' problems with Microsoft affect
the rest of the nation. The settlement with the DOJ can affect all
of the states, because it is an agreement with the Federal
Government...
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views, Kevin Ulland
[email protected]
Citizen of Washington State
Sincerely,
Kevin Ulland
MTC-00010810
From: Frank Danaher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:08pm
Subject: Dear sir
Dear sir
Please settle the MicroSoft law suits as soon as possible.
These issues do not belong in the law courts and represent an
attempt by the various state departments attorney general to enrich
the state at the expense of the the company involved. Please try to
do something to move law suits such as these out of the Department
of Justice arena and back to the companies that are involved. We
need less and not more oversight by your department regarding
commercial conflicts.
Frank Danaher
MTC-00010811
From: Steve Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end the persecution of the Microsoft Corp.
Microsoft has done much more to help the consumer and help the
American economy than they have ever done to hurt it. It is time to
stop wasting taxpayer money and end this action bby the Justice
Dept. I support the current settlement that is on the table to bring
this to a close.
[[Page 25365]]
Thanks!
Steve Brown
Reynoldsburg, OH
MTC-00010812
From: Shanmugam, Karthik
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the terms of the proposed settlement.
MTC-00010813
From: Ron LaPedis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It it please the court, I would like to commend the 9 dissenting
states for not accepting the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
I believe that it has been shown time and time again, that Microsoft
`extends and extinguishes.' That is, while appearing to support a
standard, such as Java or Kerberos, they then add extensions to it
that will only run on the Microsoft operating system (OS) platform.
When threatened by Netscape, which sold a browser which allowed web
pages to be displayed on any platform, they developed their own
browser and tightly integrated it into the OS then bundled it free
of charge. Coupled with web pages that used coding which would only
work on the Microsoft browser, they took over the market,
effectively eliminating Netscape as a viable company. And this was
AFTER a consent decree with the DOJ in an earlier case!
With Windows XP, Microsoft is attempting to take over access to
the Internet, forcing users to use their middleware and go to
Microsoft approved sites when a URL (web address) is mistyped.
Microsoft MUST be reigned in as a convicted monopolist, or there
will be no choice whatever left for consumers.
The settlement worked out for dismissal of the class action
cases alleging overcharging by Microsoft shows Microsoft's arrogance
and contempt for the law. This settlement would have helped
Microsoft crush Apple in the education market where Apple is still a
competitor. Since when is the loser of a case allowed to settle in a
manner which benefits it. Better that Microsoft be forced to
distribute coupons for free software to the customers it allegedly
overcharged. But I digress here.
I sincerely hope that you will work with the dissenting state
attorneys general to create a settlement with teeth in it which will
prevent Microsoft from crushing the competition through illegal
practices, of which it has already been convicted.
Ron LaPedis
2115 Sea Cliff Way
San Bruno, CA
650-359-9887
MTC-00010814
From: Tim McMullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
As a PC user, I believe Microsoft must be broken up to allow
competitors back into the market. Please force a spin-off of all MS
business other than a basic operating system. The spun off unit(s)
should work totally independently, with the same rights and
privileges that all other applications developers get. This will re-
enable competition and truly stimulate `innovation'.
Thanks
Tim McMullen
4615 Sidereal Dr
Austin, TX 78727-5129
(512) 837-9366
MTC-00010815
From: kaydan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has for many years used anti-competative practices to
corner the market and stifle the progression of the industry. Over
the past 10 years they've released around 10 different operating
systems. All of which have had some level of incompatibility with
one another and make it almost impossible to produce an application
that will work on their next platform's release. When a market
exists that they wish to control they either add the feature free of
charge (driving companies like Netscape out of business), or if they
wish to control a standard they create their own standard and cut
support for the currently accepted standard (DirectDraw, .Net, etc).
Or, in the worst type of situation, they try to fork an existing
standard to devalue the standard altogether (Java, JavaScript).
Being that they control a vast percentage of the market, progression
in the computer industry has actually regressed in many ways in the
last 10 years.
Sincerely
Daniel Bermender
MTC-00010816
From: landon kelsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:30pm
In a monopoly, there are explicit and implicit acts that are
illegal and bad for the USA.
*Explicit acts are those such as the many aggressive acts of
conspiracy by Microsoft brought out early in the suit.
*Implicit acts are those such as the inability of small
companies to keep up with a company (MS) that can throw 1000
programmers at a project. Norton Antivirus, for example, could be
destroyed overnight.
I personally like .NET and C# and it may be the best idea yet,
but MS is still not the US National Software Co.
If you don't believe me, look at the service you get from your
local telephone company. Many festering sores are left over from a
monopoly. A truly putrid bureaucracy left over from a monopoly.
Two types of monopoly. . .a vertical trust and a horizontal
trust Vertical. . .example McDonald's could have farms that raise
beef and everything else including restaurants Horizontal. .
.Safeway (unlikely due to inherent poor management) could own every
grocery store
MTC-00010817
From: John Longthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This attack on Microsoft, and the economy, has gone on too long.
Please concede that this suit should never have been brought to
court and bow out gracefully. The DOJ suit has most likely cost
America and its citizens more in lost wealth and economic security
than the Enron fiasco. Times are bad enough without our own
government trying to stifle job creation and wealth accumulation.
Microsoft is in a tough business and needs support rather than
hindrance.
Thank You,
John and Marilyn Longthorne
18 W. Sage St.
Pine Haven Wyoming, 82721
MTC-00010818
From: Seven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:43pm
Subject: Re: proposed settlement
I strongly feel the existing proposed settlement with Microsoft
does little to redress the manifest imbalance in the operating
system marketplace or address the monopolistic practices of
Microsoft.
The playing field needs to be leveled. The existing proposals
don't do it.
Morley Chalmers
for the 7Office team
[email protected]
416/926-9296
MTC-00010819
From: Duane Odom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am concerned that this settlement will do little to change
Microsoft's behavior or restore competition. The sttlement fails to
curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware programs
including browsers, media players, and instant messaging software
into the monopoly Windows operating system and it is ambiguous and
subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it lacks an effective
enforcement mechanism.
Microsoft is a monopoly and has used that monopoly position to
force others out of business or to bend to fit their desires. This
affects people's freedom to choose among alternatives. It affects
the price people must pay, directly or indirectly. It also has
longer-term implications for prople's privacy and security. It means
less innovation and lower quality software.
Thank You,
Duane Odom
Duane Odom
3035 Barnes Ln.
Cottondale, FL 32431
(850)352-2229
[email protected]
MTC-00010821
From: Jim Robertson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 1:59pm
Subject: FW: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
I received the following email message. I am only writing to see
if it is a legitimate use of my time (or the people I forward this
to) or is it a hoax? Is the DOJ seeking public comment? I receive so
many ``form/chain''
[[Page 25366]]
letter via email, I never know what to believe
anymore.
Thanks for you time.
Jim Robertson
Olympia, Washington
From: Marsha Richards [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
Dear EFF Friends,
As you know, 18 states and the federal Department of Justice
(DOJ) have been involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft. Recently,
the DOJ announced it has negotiated a settlement agreement with the
company (one of America's most successful). The settlement must be
approved by the federal judge in the case before it can take effect,
and the DOJ is currently seeking public comment.
The case against Microsoft has greatly harmed Washington
citizens. Stock values, not only in Microsoft but in the entire
NASDAQ, have dropped dramatically and consumers overwhelmingly agree
that allowing the case to end with this settlement is good for them,
the industry, and the nation's economy.
Please consider sending a letter, fax or email to the DOJ to let
them know what you think about the settlement. The deadline for
comment is January 28, 2002. I'm including a sample letter below
along with the contact information you'll need. Please feel free to
edit it as you see fit, or write your own.
I would recommend sending your comments by email or fax since
mail has had difficulties lately. Also, if possible, would you let
us know if you decide to send a letter? We'd like to measure the
impact. Thanks very much.
Cordially,
Bob Williams
President
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482
[email protected]
[Contact Information]
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
Fax: (202) 307-1454--OR--(202) 616-9937
[Sample Letter]
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
MTC-00010822
From: Bob Mileti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:04pm
Subject: Don't buy the Microsoft Settlement
Dear US Dept. of Justice:
Please do not allow Microsoft to settle this case with such a
self serving plan. They have cost me and my small company untold
amounts of money due to poor products and total lack of support.
Furthermore I'd like to have all the money I spent for programs that
I never wanted in the first place, but were forced to pay for from
Dell and Gateway.
Make it hurt and make it hurt good.
Thank you,
Bob Mileti
MTC-00010823
From: T. Ron Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:10pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Litigation
BlankRenata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
[email protected]
I'm fed up. This is litigation that never should have been filed
in the first place. It has stifled innovation, severely damaged the
economy, and impacted or will impact the majority of technology
companies in the USA for decades. Anti-trust laws are in place to
protect CONSUMERS not COMPETITORS. Consumers do NOT, and never did,
support this legal fiasco. I urge you to put this outrageous waste
of taxpayer money to bed. Get it settled and get on with real
business.
I am encouraging all of my colleagues to contact you as well.
Sincerely,
T. Ron Davis
25424 NE 39th Way
Redmond, WA 98053
T. Ron Davis
President/CEO
iRequest, Inc.
http://www.irequest.com
Tele: 425-643-1771
FAX : 425-898-9726
``Empowering the Consumer Through Information''
MTC-00010824
From: Richard Saul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:12pm
Subject: Settlement in Microsoft Antitrust Case
Microsoft wields enormous power in the computer industry. They
are able to share software and computer hardware development. I have
been a software engineer for twenty years and I have seen Microsoft
grow from ``micro'' to huge.
Microsoft has a long-standing practice of including new features
that directly compete with another company's software into the
Windows operating system family. They brought this practice with
them from the DOS operating system.
[[Page 25367]]
Microsoft has done used this exact practice with:
1. Memory management, inclusion of Expanded Memory Services
killed Quarterdeck's QEMM.
2. Disk Compression, inclusion of disk compression wiped out
Stac Electronics Stacker.
3. Fax Services, by including fax capability Microsoft has
reduced the market for WinFax.
4. Remote Control software (like PCAnywhere) is an example that
has just been introduced in Windows XP. Microsoft will enter a
market with a very low priced product because they have the scale of
economy to afford to dump the product at a loss. They do this until
they have wiped out their competitors.
This has been done with:
1. Access, Microsoft introduced Access for $99 at a time when
databases commonly cost $500.
2. Internet Explorer, Microsoft gave IE away when Netscape cost
$40 to buy.
3. TCP/IP network access. Microsoft gave away free TCP/IP
software when ordinarily it cost $350 or more.
4. The XBox is a current example of this product. Microsoft
``subsidizes'' their competition and includes other company's
products into Windows. This might appear to be in a company's best
interest but in fact it limits the company's ability to succeed
because of the contractual obligation they are under.
1. HyperTerminal
2. Citrix
Last and maybe worse Microsoft manipulates standards to their
benefit. 1. Java as a language was standardized by Sun Microsystems,
Microsoft introduced a ``Java'' product with different features that
competed against Sun's standard.
2. Microsoft formulated the Internet Explorer web browser to
understand the HyperText Markup Language different than Netscape;
web developers had to choose between developing for one, the other
or both.
Microsoft has delivered incredible value for its customers. I
have no doubt. But they have done that over the dead bodies of
dozens of competitors. Microsoft's ability to create a new operating
system version and be the only company to deliver productivity
software for the platform is almost the heart of their advantage.
Take it away!
If you look at every major Microsoft OS introduction of the last
10 years, Microsoft always delivers a new version of Office
simultaneously. They are the only company that can and their
competitors spend the next year catching up. Stop this!
The only way that true competition can be restored is if
Microsoft's Operating System group is torn away from the
Applications group. Break Microsoft up! Breaking Microsoft up into
at least 2 and maybe more companies is the only way to restore
competition in the software market. I bet if I wrote this in
Microsoft Word you could read it, but if I wrote it in Lotus WordPro
you couldn't!
Rich
Richard Saul, Engineer
POS Development
Kinko's Field Support Organization
[email protected]
MTC-00010825
From: Walt Perko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:12pm
Subject: OS vs. Advertising portal?
Aloha,
I love Windows. However, my fear of MS has been growing with the
growth of the Internet and Internet Portals. I don't want to upgrade
to Windows XP for fear of a marketing blitz and a filtered Internet
in it's very near future.
It should be written some basic laws of the Digital Domain--
1.email falls under the same rules and procedures as snail mail
2.Operating Systems should be just that and no more, not attached to
a `Profiler' or `Advertising Portal' unless we get the OS AND
UltraBandWidth `New Global Network' access FREE like broadcast TV. I
should be able to do a search on the Internet like it was the Oxford
English, American Heritage etc? Dictionaries and all the
Encyclopedia's combined etc?
I should be able to do a search on the Internet and find a
mailing address, email address, phone number etc. of anybody in the
world. NO UNLISTED ENTRIES!
I should be able to be connected to the Internet and see who is
connected to me at ALL TIMES!
I've been looking at Linux, it's not ready for prime-time yet,
but getting close--but how much will it cost to move some of my very
expensive software to run on it??? I'm hoping for a newer and better
OS than Linux.
Check my creativity on iFilm.com and MP3.com . . . My goal is
simple. To live a good life and know I've learned what is important
to life and it's meaning . . . Walt Perko
It's not the bulls and bears you need to avoid--it's the bum
steers.--Chuck Hillis
Whoever values peace of mind and the health of the soul will
live the best of all possible lives.--Marcus Aurelius
Great people talk about ideas. Small people talk about other
people.--Tobias S. Gibson
The person who makes a success of living is one who sees his
goal steadily and aims for it unswervingly. That's dedication.--
Cecil B. De Mille
The person who goes farthest is generally the one who is willing
to do and dare. The sure-thing boat never gets far from shore.--Dale
Carnegie
MTC-00010826
From: Himani Naresh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The Microsoft lawsuits have been a waste of taxpayer dollars and
a huge burden to our IT sector. They have dragged on too long and
should be settled as soon as possible. Having said that, I think the
settlement is in the best interest of the American public because it
will allow Microsoft to focus on its own business and the IT sector
to return to normal Some of the terms of the agreement are a little
harsh on Microsoft, but overall I think they are fair. Consumers and
software developers have to be happy that Microsoft will be
disclosing internal interface technology, and designing future
versions of `Windows' so that other vendors can promote their
products from within the OS.
The nine states that are in opposition to the settlement are
just showboating and should be reprimanded at the federal level.
They have no right to continue this suit, which should not be
handled at the states level anyway. Please stop the nine states from
furthering the deterioration of our IT sector. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely,
Himani Naresh
5306 Lake Washington Blvd. #H
Kirkland, WA 98008
MTC-00010827
From: Gideon Yuval
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:20pm
Subject: settlement
It would seem to me high time that that old MS lawsuit were
finally settled.
Thanks
Gideon
MTC-00010828
From: Susan Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:21pm
Subject: Judge Kollar Kotell
Judge Kollar Kotell-
I am writing to express my concern about the Justice
Department's handling of the Microsoft case. I understand that the
Tunney Act allows review of this decision, and I would like to
express my concern about increasing Microsofts power and monopoly
through this decision. My understanding is that every court decision
regarding Microsoft and its antitrust/monopoly activity has found
that Microsoft abused its monopoly position to prevent competition
and restrain free trade. These decisions have been found repeatedly
in the judicial system over the past three years. I am very
concerned that the Department of Justice is not punishing Microsoft
nor moving to stop this behavior. It presents significant risk to
free trade and other competitors to allow Microsoft to use their
monopoly power to hold customers hostage and reduce their product
choices. This sets a dangerous precedent. I believe Microsoft should
be penalized for its long-standing antitrust abuses and prevented
from exhibiting this behavior in the future. Other products/
technologies/compaines are at risk for their very existence if
Microsoft is allowed to continue this anticompetitive behavior
(products based on Java, Linux, AOL, the Mac, etc).
I hope you will take this under consideration in your decisions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely-
Susan P. Gibson
Susan P. Gibson
President--Eve Group Inc.
1004 Windermere Avenue
[[Page 25368]]
Menlo Park, CA 94025
ph 650 326-8073
fax 650 326-8073
cell 650 888-2646
MTC-00010829
From: Bill Zipfel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The corrupt and criminal Clinton administration is thankfully
over and the Executive Branch has been returned to honor. Because of
the staggering turpitude of the Clinton administration, there is
much work yet to be done to root out the continuing disgrace that it
was. One large item on that list must be the settlement of the
Microsoft case. I strongly support the settlement. Successful
entrpreneurs who create thousands of jobs and add real value to our
world ought to be praised and emulated, not sued and mocked.
Bill Zipfel
MTC-00010830
From: Patrick H. Corrigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, the DOJ settlement was a gift to Microsoft, not a
punishment. Like the previous settlement DOJ settlement with
Microsoft it only prevents behavior that is moot because the damage
has been done and also allows practices that will tend to strengthen
Microsoft's grip on the computer industry.
In every instance in which Microsoft has gained domination of a
market segment innovation has ceased and prices have risen.
Sometimes the price increases have been hidden in upgrade costs and
changes to licensing terms, but the have increased none the less.
Little new software is being developed because potential developers
and investors know that if a new product is successful Microsoft
will use its monopoly power to take over the market for that
product. Microsoft is now using its might to make sure it dominates
and controls the Internet.
Please find a way to reign them in.
Patrick H. Corrigan
[email protected]
MTC-00010831
From: Jerry Burgen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 2:25pm
Subject: Settlements
Howdy,
Thanks for handling the Microsoft judgement this way. It bodes
good for us all. In essence, what we've got here is that if I am
found guilty of breaking any law of these United States, that if I
don't agree with the outcome, that I also have the right to sit down
with the prosecution and work out a solution that is agreeable with
me, despite what the laws state, correct? Thanks for setting the
precedence, this means that every supposed lawbreaker in the future
will have the same opportunity to self adjust their punishment that
you have given Microsoft. I'm sure that they will be glad to hear
it. Oh, and does that also apply to the people that have broken laws
in the past, ie. racketeers, smugglers, etc? Keep up the good work.
Jerome Paul Burgen
Honest Citizen of These United States
[email protected] CC:`jburgen(a)mediaone.net'
MTC-00010832
From: Bill Buxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
I feel sold out. I can not fathom by what degree of
righteousness the DOJ can possibly think that a settlement of a few
billion dollars constitutes justice. I have been around, or in, the
computer industry since 1980 when I took my first programming class.
Over the years I have watched with sadness as one company after an
other has sought to dominate (control) the industry. My greatest
hopes were on Microsoft as they seemed to talk the talk of equity
and fairness. Then, from my own experience, I learned that they were
one of the worst offenders. They have sought the advantage of every
loophole and trick to market their products and control competitors.
I have even felt they broke the law in several instances where they
sought to extend and embrace competitors, or persuaded companies
that it would not be wise to market competing technologies.
The bottom line is that what they have done is illegal and
immoral. To punish them with a simple fine draws short of preventing
them or other companies from doing the same in the future. Microsoft
should be broken up into smaller companies (OS, Desktop
applications, Back Office or application integration, and web
technologies) so that they do not have the ability to wield such
influence to stifle future competition.
PS My view are my own and not those of the company I currently
work for.
Bill Buxton
Web/App Developer
Miller Heiman Incorporated Tel:(775)827-4411 x257 [PST]
1595 Meadow Wood Lane Fax:(775)827-5517
Suite #2 mailto:[email protected]
Reno, NV 89502 http://www.millerheiman.com
http://www.millerheiman.com/>
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010833
From: Jane Griscti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:31pm
Subject: Settlement of little or no benefit to consumers
To the average user there is only one operating system available
for PC's ... Microsoft. Most users are not even aware there are
options. This is more than just `branding'; MS has successfully
wiped out any consciousness of choice in the operating system
market. Their success places developers in a bind; if most of the
installed base is MS then they must write applications for MS. Often
these applications don't have the newest feature displayed by MS
developed applications. This in turn pushes consumers to use MS
applications and MS NEVER writes applications for non-MS platforms.
Developers end up in a Catch-22 situation. The consumer doesn't
become aware of competing products because the hot applications get
written for MS first then MS releases a newer `hotter' application
taking advantage of the latest MS operating system bells and
whistles (known about by MS internal developers) and the external
developers play catch up. In the end, the MS operating system
becomes the only playing field; one slanted heavily in MS's favour.
Application and Middleware development need to be spun off in to
an independent company. As well, the new company should be
encouraged to write software for non-MS operating systems as well as
MS systems. Not only will that open up the operating system playing
field but also the application software field. Then maybe consumer's
will begin to learn that PC does not equal MS.
Jane Griscti
[email protected]
MTC-00010834
From: Pam Dvorak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2'32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement/Comments inder the Tunney Act
The attached file contains my comments on this settlement. Thank
you-Pamela J. Dvorak
Pamela J. Dvorak
612 Woodleave Road
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2921
610-526-2216 / fax 610-526-2886 / [email protected]
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 14, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am pleased that the Microsoft Antitrust case has finally
nearing completion. After three years of litigation, it is time.
Microsoft can once again focus on what it does best- product
development, driving a successful business.
The broad range of the settlement [restrictions and obligations
on Microsoft that extend products and technologies not even at issue
in the original lawsuit] represents Microsoft's willingness to bend
backward to see this case rectified and settled. With Windows XP,
Microsoft has already carried out modifications listed within the
agreement, making it easier for computer makers, software developers
and consumers to reconfigure their Windows setup at any time. In
addition to that, Microsoft has also agreed to supply to the
competition its protocols used to operate Microsoft's server
operating system, allowing opposing software companies to make their
products compatible, should they choose to do so.
Microsoft's compliance will be monitored carefully, thus
precluding future violations. This may be `preaching to the choir',
but I never felt that the company should have been punished for
being competitive- and doing well. The American way is for the
market to judge the value of the product. Not everyone
[[Page 25369]]
can be on top. From my view, this Operating System made this
technology user-friendly and accessible to a great segment of
the population. Thank you in advance for your support of this
[dare I hope] final settlement. Sincerely,
Pamela J. Dvorak
cc: Senator Rick Santorum Senator Arlen Specter
MTC-00010835
From: Stephen Marney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:33pm
Subject: I don't like the proposed MSFT settlement
No, not one little itsy bit, I don't!
You guys aren't doing your jobs as far I'm concerned.
Stephen Marney
MTC-00010836
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft--another word for dictatorship
I would like to present a few comments regarding the proposed
settlement offered by Microsoft Corporation in its court case. I
firmly believe that Microsoft Corporation has a committment to a
policy of world domination in the computer realm. All the past
actions of Microsoft indicate that the company has an embedded
policy of control of the computer and computer software industies to
the end that Microsoft products will be the only products available
to the computer using world.
Microsoft has engaged in manipulation of software functioning
and content through financial actions such as purchasing the rights
to programs and then supressing the functions and content by
deliberately denying those functions and content to computer users
by not including those functions and contents in Microsoft products.
Functions and content have also been altered so that they will not
perform as originally created to perform, or have been so altered
that they will not perform in any venue except a Microsoft venue,
thereby denying their usefulness to the computer using public.
An example of these actions is plainly visible in the recent
information release of the proposed WMA programs and devices. WMA
programs are designed to deliberately alter MP3 sound files so the
files will no longer perform properly on an MP3 device. The
resultant WMA converted file will only perform properly on a WMA
device and cannot be reverted back to its original form because of
the proprietary programming that Microsoft has created.
This move, creating a completely incompatible MP3 alteration
program, indicates that Microsoft Corporation intends to invade the
MP3 device market with an overwhelming effort. The intention could
be to eliminate all MP3 market devices and replace them with WMA
devices which are the intellectual and marketing property of
Microsoft, thereby creating another monopolistic situation.
Microsoft Corporation will attempt to assuage the concerns of
individuals and government offices by stating that their devices
work in conjunction with PC format computers and are an enhancement
for those devices. Microsoft will not admit that the MP3 alteration
program is irreversible or that it will be made available to the
buying public as a ``loss leader'' sale item. Microsoft Corporation
should not be permitted to continue its policy of domination through
repression and denial. Microsoft should be forced to reveal the
source code being used in its programs so that free enterprise
developers will have the opportunities to create products and
software that competes freely with Microsoft products.
Microsoft should be forced to separate the functions of software
program creation and computer operating system production to enable
private enterprise development of competing products.
The penalty phase of this issue should be made effective against
Microsoft and cause the corporation to make appropriate redress of
the wrongs it has already committed. Microsoft should not be
permitted to continue to defraud the government and the courts by
``giving'' Microsoft products and software to a market area that
Microsoft has not had a history of effective past presence. Allowing
Microsoft to buy its way out of any penalty by ``donating'' outdated
and refurbished equipment and software to schools is not an
effective penalty. It only allows Microsoft to freely establish
itself in an area and provides further domination of the computer
market by creating a situation where children would be exposed to
only Microsoft products and programs. This would help to create
another market segment, the children become future Microsoft product
users through their introduction and indoctrination to those
products while in school, which would ensure the monopoly that
Microsoft is attempting to continue.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. I hope that a
sensible and proper adjudication of the monopoly suit will be
reached and that proper penalties will be assessed against Microsoft
Corporation for its egregious business practices.
Ronald Steinke
701 Bradford Court
Chico, CA 95926-8768
MTC-00010837
From: HP Authorized Customer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Attorney General:
I think people are after Microsoft because Microsoft is a
successful company and has plenty of money. Why penalize success?
I notice ever since the government started with charging
Microsoft with wrongdoing we've been in a recession.
Microsoft wanted to donate one billion dollars and they don't
think that's enough. Give me a break!
Respectfully yours
Richard Diamond
CC:Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
MTC-00010838
From: Jacy Odin Grannis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor; Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing out of deep concern about the proposed settlement
plan. It is my contention that the settlement focuses on remedying
what are, in the end, minor issues and does not begin to address the
larger issue of Microsoft's true impact on the competitive
landscape.
As noted in the findings of the court, Microsoft is a monopoly.
The most damaging aspect of this is Microsoft's ability to
unilaterally set de facto standards for the computing industry.
Microsoft argues that by so doing, it is acting in the public
interest. Certainly standards do benefit the industry, but it is
also certainly not true that Microsoft is uniquely capable of coming
up with the best standard. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that
Microsoft is not truly using this power to improve matters for the
consumer, but to further extend its own monopoly. For example,
RealAudio was one of the first products to offer streaming media for
the Internet. It would not be a stretch to say that, at one time, it
was the de facto standard. Microsoft saw that it was behind in the
game, but rather than working to improve the standard that existed,
it came up with its own proprietary standard that would require the
use of its products and which would only run on Windows. Not only
that, but it began to bundle its own player as the default player
with Windows. Now, while Microsoft's Media Player may, now, be
technically the match of other media players, but at the time it was
not. However, consumers have demonstrated time and time again that
what matters most to the majority is not technical superiority, per
se, but convenience. Thus, though Microsoft's player might not have
been the best; it was already there, and more or less did the job,
so they consumers used it if they could. If Microsoft did not have
this huge advantage, however, it is very questionable whether their
product could have survived. Nonetheless, it did, and now RealAudio
is engaged in a pitched (and, it seems, losing) battle to get users
to use its products.
There are other very similar examples such as Netscape, Outlook
Express, and MSN Messenger. In each case, Microsoft started behind
the competition with an inferior product. However, by bundling their
product with the operating system and by, in effect, dumping their
product for free, they overtook other competitors whose main revenue
was selling a competing product.
Microsoft Office is another huge cornerstone in the monopoly. It
has, itself, become a standard. It helps reinforce the Windows
monopoly. Anecdotally, and speaking only for myself, I can say that
I have become very frustrated with Windows over the past several
years. It is not nearly as stable as I would like, and it has too
much baggage that slows it down. However, I find that I am unable to
drop it entirely and go to Linux (which is a technically superior
system) largely because I use Microsoft Office, and it is not
available on Linux. I am certain that I am not the only person in
that position, though I can not offer statistics to
[[Page 25370]]
demonstrate what sort of population I represent. However, the point
remains that there is a demand for other operating systems. An
independent company would likely want to meet that demand, to give
users the software they want on whatever platform they want to run.
But Microsoft, which has become a monopoly in so many areas of the
software industry, has a disincentive to meet that demand. Rather
than develop new versions of their programs for other operating
systems, they continue to develop almost solely for Windows. Their
statements to the contrary, this is not because of any technical
superiority enjoyed by Windows. Their only motivation is to further
the Windows monopoly.
In the end, these examples become self-reinforcing. Microsoft
Windows enjoys a monopoly position in the operating systems market.
Microsoft develops new standards that require the user to be running
Microsoft Windows. It pushes these standards and creates new
monopolies by bundling its technologies with the operating system.
It enjoys other monopoly positions with other products, such as
Office. It concentrates its development of these products mostly or
exclusively on Windows (Microsoft's support of the Mac is laughable,
and only exists to give it a chance to say they aren't doing what
they're doing). This reinforces their Windows monopoly. Since users
have to have Windows to run software they need, such as Office, they
use Windows. Other companies know that users have to be running
Windows, so they develop for it. This furthers the OS monopoly of
Microsoft. In the end, though, everyone but Microsoft loses. They
can dominate any market they enter by virtue of their sheer size and
position. All the other companies are forced to scrape along in
niche markets because they can't really compete with the position
Microsoft has built for itself.
The proposed settlement fails to remedy this situation. Even
with the settlement remedies in place, Microsoft will still be able
to bundle new products and technologies in to Windows, stifling
competition. Indeed, this is currently going on. Microsoft has
decided that it does not want to support Java because it does not
have proprietary control over it. So it has created a new language,
C#, as a competitor. Their whole .NET strategy is a prime example of
Microsoft using its position to further its monopoly. And there is
nothing in the settlement that will prevent them from continuing to
pursue this strategy.
What, then, is the remedy? First of all, Microsoft must be
broken up. Windows should become its own company. Office should
become its own company. And the rest of Microsoft's products should
go in to a third company. Secondly, Microsoft should be forced to
devote equal development resources to developing its applications,
especially Office, for an alternate platform. Preferably this would
be Linux, but the Mac OS X would do as well. Thirdly, Microsoft
Windows source code should be released to the public. Not as free
code, but on an open source license that allows people to see the
code for free, but requires them to pay a license fee if they want
to use it. Finally, the different companies that emerge from
Microsoft should be forbidden from entering into any collaborations
with each other whatsoever for a period of five years.
Thank you for your time.
Jacy Grannis
Senior Software Engineer
Questia Media, Inc.
MTC-00010839
From: Westly.Schmidt@bankofamerica. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the proposed final judgement because it:
Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft
was found to have illegally protected;
Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology
community;
Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. Furthermore, Microsoft is
a monopoly and has used that monopoly position to force others out
of business or to bend to fit their desires. This approach is
EXTREMELY destructive to business where competition is in the best
interests of everyone (except Microsoft) involved. The the proposed
final judgement is a joke, a slap in the face to anyone with enough
education or expierence to know what they are trying to get away
with. It is pure ignorance, or a desire to profit from the demise of
our society, that would enable anyone to accept the terms of the
proposed final judgement as being just. For everyones sake,
including (albiet, against its will) Microsoft's, do not accept the
proposed final judgement.
Sincerely,
Westly Schmidt
MTC-00010840
From: Ron (038) Tynna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:40pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Ronald Davis
412 S Vine Street
Wichita, KS 67213
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
As I read the paper, I get more and more concerned over the
status of our economy. Since I know that the technology industry has
a great deal to do with the status of our economy, I get concerned
over items like the recent Microsoft developments. I was obviously
surprised to find out that Microsoft is being delayed even further.
After three years of negotiations, it is ridiculous to dissect this
agreement any further. The governments of the US and Kansas State
have many other things to worry about, and should not be wasting
our resources on a battle that has already been won.
The terms of this agreement have not only been well thought out,
but include many substantial changes to which Microsoft has agreed
to. Some of these changes include business-related topics such as
licensing and marketing, but even extend to engineering, design, and
documentation of intellectual property. As we let these terms speak
for themselves, we allow the IT sector to work together and focus on
maintaining our place in the global market. This is important to the
consumer, our technology industry, and our economy as a whole.
Help support our technology industry. We need to get back to
business and continue with the innovation that has made us great.
Please help stop any further action against this settlement.
Sincerely,
Ronald Davis
MTC-00010841
From: Santiago Alfaro Tornero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Escribir estas notas en castellano. Creo que sobre todo lo
relacionado con el caso Microsoft hay una cuesti?n clave: para que
se cree tecnolog?a y haya investigaci?n, que cuando se aplique lugar
a avances para todos, es crucial tener campo donde trabajar e
innovar. Lo que tristemente est? ocurriendo es que Microsoft est?
comprando cualquier innovaci?n que se produce en el campo de las
tecnolog?as de la informaci?n en cualquier lugar del mundo, y con
ello, hace que muera la ilusi?n de las personas por dise?ar algo
nuevo ya que pasa a pertenecer a Microsoft. Si hay un pa's en el
mundo que entiende el valor de las personas por luchar por algo
propio, ese es Estados Unidos.
Si seguimos as?, va a ser tan dif?cil invertir en Tecnolog?as de
la Informaci?n que nadie lo va a intentar, y con ello va a perderse
la impresionante innovaci?n que proviene de las personas y las
empresas peque?as con capacidad de crear nuevas formas de hacer. No
creo que sirvan para nada estas l?neas, ya que lo que mueve el mundo
son los intereses ego'stas de grandes conglomerados industriales.
Me conformo con recibir una notificaci?n v?a correo electr?nico
de que alguien por lo menos ha le?do estas l?neas.
Muchas gracias.
MTC-00010842
From: Christian BAYER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I think it is very apparent the proposed Microsoft settlement
neglects some significant areas. It does nothing to; prohibit the
illegal conduct and similar conduct in the future, spark competition
in the software industry or deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
I believe the judicial system is required to insure these types of
remedies are made when violations of anti-trust laws occur. I
[[Page 25371]]
believe the evidence of Microsoft's gross disregard for conducting
itself in a legal manner and the costly detriment consumers have
suffered should compel an attempt to uphold the law rather than
brushing it aside, as seems to be happening. Other concerns
regarding the exposure of children to Microsoft's products are
additional issues. If the judicial system does not seek to enforce
the laws of the United States, what pupose does it serve?
Christian Bayer
MTC-00010843
From: Isaac Ordonez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that allowing Microsoft to push it's monopoly into
schools as punishment for it's monopoly is down right stupid. This
company get away with murder and needs to be punished fully. I think
the original ruling to break up the company allow companies with
actually working products to flood the market. Please do not allow
Old bill to rule my Microwave, Video games, Computer, TV, Internet,
Car, and even bed. They are taking it too far and should stick to
making an OS and office suite.
Isaac Ordonez
Technology Support Specialist II
San Rafael City Schools
MTC-00010844
From: Andre Azaroff
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
I am opposed to the proposed settlement the DOJ has made with
Microsoft. It does nothing to punish or prevent any of the predetory
business practices Microsoft has been found guilty of.
I also feel it is deplorable that the judicial (and apparently
the executive) branch of our government is for sale and has been
bought. Also that it is for sale only to a select few now that the
republicans are back in power. Yes, the republicans who supposedly
pride themselves on being the law and order group in washington. I
guess the old addage is true that the law only applies to those who
can't afford it. The end result of your current actions in this case
ceartainly show that anyone with enough money or clout or
connections may choose to ignore any law they see fit (whether or
not the law is just is a different matter, it still is a law) and
that once a verdict is haded down, if the defendant disagrees with
it, he may negotiate a different verdict. This is very disturbing. I
would hate to think that this lawsuit will now be cited as precedent
in criminal cases allowing murderers and rapists to be able to
negotiate lesser sentences.
The settlement negotiated with Microsoft will do nothing to
curtail their unfair business practices. Particularly the Microsoft
``TAX'' everyone pays for buying a new PC. The tax I am referring to
is the licensing that is added to allmost all new PCs sold, even if
there are absolutely no Microsoft products installed on them. This I
find particularly disturbing. Since the PC manufacturers have
absolutely no recourse or protection from Microsoft's ability to
pull their windows license without any infractions to their business
arrangement with Microsoft. I could go on (point by point) but I
feel I have expressed my opinion.
Andre Azaroff
St. Onge Company
1400 Williams Road
York PA 17402
Phone: 717 840-8181 ext. 8075
Fax: 717 840-8182
Website: www.stonge.com
MTC-00010845
From: Michael Sean Goppold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Since Microsoft got away with illigally bundling middleware
programs, and is a monopoly, further distribution for the next few
years of Microsoft Windows Operating Systems should be prohibited
from containing such bundled middleware programs, either through
discount or use of freeware.
Hardware vendors must give at least 5 choices other than MS
Windows, with full interlopility of its hardware.
Other than that, the proposal I feel does do a lot for the time
being. I agree with most of the terms of the proposal. Since
Microsoft's monopoly is illigal, in case that after the duration of
the Judgement Microsoft still has ways to run a monopoly on the
software scene, perhaps a more generic, more widely applicable set
of rules for competitive software distribution will be necessary.
Thanks for considering my opinions.
Mike Goppold
MTC-00010846
From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:02pm
Subject: No Deals for Bill
Its incredible to see how some want to continue to coddle Bill
Gates and Microsoft. This is the biggest antitrust case since
Standard Oil. Instead of considering ways to extend their monopoly
into the education system, we should be formulating ways to remove
their unfair advantage and punish them for their predatory,
imperialistic business practices. A couple of suggests: open source
the operating system code; break up the company by OS, Applications,
Development Environments and Internet; and apply punitive damages
commiserate with past damages and future earnings of its victims.
Here's a chance to put real competition back into the software and
operating systems business, don't blow it!
MTC-00010847
From: Gregory Brewer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Brewer
1227 SW 149th Lane
Sunrise, FL 33326
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Brewer
MTC-00010848
From: Jon Viscott
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jon Viscott
8581 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered
taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
[[Page 25372]]
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jon Viscott
MTC-00010849
From: Jo Ann Sedars
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jo Ann Sedars
3714 North Shore Drive
Clear Lake, IA 50428
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Sedars
MTC-00010850
From: Penney Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Penney Williams
4946 Mathews Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46227-4223
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Penney Williams
MTC-00010851
From: Lucia Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:19pm
Subject: Bonanza
The proposed ``punishment'' for Microsoft seems, in fact, to be
a marketing bonanza for the company that facilitates the sort of
non-competetive actions the firm is to be sanctioned for. This makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever, and will simply assist Microsoft in
killing the competetion for once and for all--and far more rapidly
than they could on their own. The existence of other operating
systems such as Apple and Linux is essential for encouraging
innovation and keeping pricing competetive.
Lucia Foley
Lucia Foley
Director of Communications
Hampshire Educational Collaborative
97 Hawley Street
Northampton, MA 01060
413-586-4900 x109 / 413-586-0180 fax
www.collaborative.org
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00010852
From: W. Nathaniel Mills, III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Please read my note below originally sent to Richard Blumenthal,
AG, State of CT. Thank you,
Nat.
Forwarding...
Monday, January 14, 2002 3:16 PM
To: ``W. Nathaniel Mills, III'' [email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Thanks for not supporting DOJ cave-in to M$
``W. Nathaniel Mills, III'' wrote:
It makes me proud to reside in a state not affraid to seek
justice, regardless of the potential political fallout. Please
continue to pursue litigation against Microsoft. They have done so
much to constrain innovation in the personal (and now business)
computer marketplace, it would be a shame to see them walk away with
little more than a slap on the wrist. The first question investors
ask small technology companies seeking funds is ``what will you do
when Microsoft replicates your technology and offers it for free?''
How can you counter such a question, unless you believe you have some
remedy in the courts to be protected from such aggressive,
monopolistic behavior?
Best Regards, Nat
W. Nathaniel Mills, III
16 Deer Hill Lane
Coventry, CT, 06238
860 742 7646
Dear Mr. Mills:
Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning
the Microsoft antitrust case.
As you know, on November 6, 2001, the United States Department
of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement. I did not join
that settlement because I do not believe it would accomplish the
goals we set when we filed the case. Nor would it accomplish the
remedial goals set by the U.S. Court of Appeals: (1) to prohibit the
illegal conduct and similar conduct in the future, (2) to spark
competition in this industry; and (3) to deprive Microsoft of its
illegal gains.
You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, as
follows:
Mail: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[NOTE: Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington,
DC, and current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely
mail service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that
comments be submitted via e-mail or fax.]
E-mail: [email protected]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type ``Microsoft
Settlement.''
Fax : 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General
MTC-00010853
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to get on with business. Please accept the settlement
that has been reached between Microsoft, the DOJ, and nine states.
This bickering is a problem for our economy which is in a tenuous
state right now. Let it go!
AGREE TO THE SETTLEMENT ALREADY REACHED AND STOP THE CONTINUING
PROSECUTION OF MICROSOFT.
Thank you.
John Murphy
109 Pine Wood Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95032
John Murphy
MTC-00010854
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:31pm
[[Page 25373]]
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I wonder how many millions is being spent of taxpayers money to
continue the case against Microsoft. Is the government really
concerned about monopoly now after they have made a ruling, or is it
just politics and competitors getting their state governments to
continue on for the special interest of those companies? I am weary
of it. Let it go and let the people benefit rather than use
taxpayers money to pay for the competitors wish lists.
Diane Guildner
MTC-00010855
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 1/14/02 3:32pm
Subject: ; Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am a 20 year software executive who has had the opportunity to
both partner with Microsoft and compete against Microsoft during my
career. As such, I have spent time in Redmond, WA and gotten to know
firsthand both the culture, and Machiavellian management philosophy
that has been a legacy at Microsoft.
In recent days, I have come to know through an ex-colleague some
of the details relating to the Proposed Settlement made by the
Justice Department with Microsoft, and to say the least, I am
displeased by them. This is why I am writing to you today.
Your Honor, how could the Justice Department grant Microsoft a
government-mandated monopoly of the software industry and even
worse--other technology markets? Clearly, this decision would
seriously jeopardize all competitors--both now and in the future.
This decision would clearly violate some basic principals of
Capitalism, such as our right to choose, our right to fair
competition, fair pricing, etc.
In closing, your Honor, I submit to you that like never before
in our Country's history, Microsoft has unequivocally shown itself
to be the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. Their illegal conduct and
activities (bribing & threatening partners and competitors) have
been proven time and time again. I would like to see Microsoft be
brought to justice for the good of our country, our economy, and
most of all- the good of our people. I like millions of other
Americans are counting on you, and counting on justice to prevail.
Respectfully,
Joseph Cortale
Senior Vice President of Sales
[email protected]
Eloquent
2000 Alameda de Las Pulgas
Suite 100
San Mateo CA 94403
Tel: (650) 294-6474
www.eloquent.com
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for
the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review by others is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please
contact the sender and delete all copies.
MTC-00010856
From: Ken McFadden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom this may concern:
I am a System Administrator and am appalled by the Settlement
against Microsoft. Even today, MicroSoft is still trying to impose
and force Windows products on all users (this is evident in their
latest OS's in their implementation of MIT's Kerberos and LDAP). In
today's ``Hell'ter Skelter'' world of terrorism, it is more
imperative that Corporate America be able to secure their computer
systems to the highest degree.
Kerberos is one product that allows that higher security needed
today regardless of the platform. MicroSoft has once again embedded
a standard into their OS, but doing what they know best, and that is
disabling it from working with the true standard. As soon as someone
devised a solution to higher security along with a means where
Windows and Unix machines could talk between each other and maintain
common user ID's and Passwords, Microsoft has to block it and once
again making it impossible for users to have both Microsoft and Unix
products together (or impose Microsoft's solutions to enable it to
work).
Every Computer Professional in the US is tuned into the issue
with MicroSoft's Monopoly case, of which we are broken into 2
groups. One who only uses MicroSoft products and is ignorant to
their practices. And the other who use both types of platforms. As
myself, I work for Lockheed Martin, which contracts to the
Government, and due to reliability and security reasons we are
required to use Unix on certain applications. MicroSoft continuously
makes my job harder day to day.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue practicing these methods
where one day everyone gets fed-up and moves to Microsoft, thus
allowing a tremendous hole in our Corporate America and National
Security. As it is Microsoft products are known to be very buggy.
Microsoft needs to concentrate on improving the reliability of their
current products before attempting to mess-up others with reliable
products in an attempt to block others from making a buck.
I pray that regardless of what Microsoft may throw your way to
muddy up the water, you will stay true to what is best for this
Nation. Personnel opinion is Microsoft should be split where they
could focus on Operating Systems only thereby improving the product
for all customers.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. McFadden
MTC-00010857
From: Peg and Phil Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We believe the government suit against Microsoft has gone on
long enough. It has been very expensive and we fail to see how it
has served the interest of the public.
Sincerely,
Philip & Margaret Walker
2435 Felt Street #118
Santa Cruz CA 95062
MTC-00010858
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THE SETTLEMENT IS VERY FAIR-UNDER ATTORNEY JANET RENO CLINTONITE
INVESTIGATIONS WERE STOPPED WITH OUT JUST CAUSE REOPEN ALL.THIS
LIBERAL THINKING CAUSED 911.ONLY A COMMUNIST THINKS GOVERNMENT
SHOULD CONTROL A FREE MARKET.ARE YOU ONE STOP BEING ANTIBUSINESS AND
ANTIAMERICAN.AOL CHANGED THE MARKET SHARE WITH PURCHASE OF NETSCAPE
AND THE CONSUMER WAS NOT HURT.IT IS TIME FOR YOU ALLEDGED EDUCATED
PEOPLE TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND STOP BEING A CLINTON FOOL.BILL GATES
AND THE INTERNET ARE AMERICAS NUMBER 1 INDUSTRY AND HE IS LEADING
THE WAY AND THIS MAN WILL STAY AT HIS SIDE ALL THE WAY AND THEN
SOME.ONLY ONE QUESTION ARE YOU7 A VETERAN IF NOT SIT DOWN AND ZIP
THE LIP LIBERAL-I AM PROUD TO BE A REAGAN REPUBLICAN AMERICAN BORN
VETERAN WHOSE FAMILY CAME HERE IN 1742 AND LEAD THE WAY WITH
COMPETITION AS PRESIDENT LINCLON STATED A SOCIETY LIKE OURS MUST AN
SHALL REMAIN FREE.AS A GRADUATE IN BUSINESS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO THE PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED ACCEPT THE DEAL DECERTIFY THE
CLASS ACTION FROM THIS POINT WHERE THE REMAINING IDIOTS PAY FOR
THEIR STUPIDITY.FOR THE RECORD I NOTE JIM RYAN ATTORNEY GENERAL FELT
THE DEAL WAS ACCEPTABLE.THIS MAN WILL BE REWARD FOR HIS
UNDERSTANDING YOU CAN ADDRESS HIM GOVERNOR JAMES RYAN-THE GOOD RYAN-
END OF THIS STORY AND GOD GETS THE GLORY-END THIS UNAMERICAN ERA NOW
AND THAT GENTLEMEN WILL BE THE ORDER-ASK SLICK WILLY WHAT HAPPENED
TO HIS LAW LICENSE AND LEGALLY HE ADMITTED LYING WHAT ABOUT THE RENO
GROUP WE AMERICANS WANT THE TRUTH AND THIS IS A DEMAND TO REVIEW
JANET RENO AND ALL THE LAWYERS UNDER HER SUPERVISION FOR ANY AND ALL
RICO VIOLATIONS BECAUSE THEIR SEEMS TO BE AN APPARENT MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICE AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.START THGE INVESTIGATION TODAY
WIRTHOUT HESITATION THANK YO
MTC-00010859
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is in the best interest of our national and international
economic enterprises that Microsoft is allowed to continue to bring
innovative value to consumers through the content of it s products
and services while also providing existing and new business
opportunities for the global economic good.
MTC-00010860
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25374]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time for the suit against Microsoft to be over. The
Justice Department should accept the settlement and encourage all
the other States to do the same so that our economy can recover.
MTC-00010861
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What the courts came up with is fine. Let's get on with
business.
MTC-00010862
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s been resolved. Get on with it.
MTC-00010863
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For the past ten years I have been President of a high tech
university in Michigan. Earlier in my career I practices anti-trust
law in Washington DC mostly before the FTC and the DC Circuit. I
believe the proposed settlement should be approved. While it is more
than the law requires and is ill advised it will at least put the
matter behind us. The anti-trust laws are intended to protect
markets and consumers not competitors. Regardless of proven
monopolistic behavior there has been no showing of harm to markets
or consumers. When viewing the loci of the Ps this remaining
prosecution itself sounds of champerty on the surface and its
sanctions threaten the vitality of technological innovation in this
country which will put us at a global competitive disadvantage. My
attorney general saw the importance of this competitiveness to
Michigan a state which is key to keeping America economically strong
and agrees with my recommendation.
MTC-00010865
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As I am not a stockholder in any of the companies involved I don
t think I or the government has any business in this matter at all.
The consumer me has more power than Microsoft and the government put
together. We are not threatened or endangered. You are being used.
S.
MTC-00010866
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern: I support the settlement crafted between
Microsoft and the US DOJ. I dont feel the case was warranted from
its inception. Millions of taxpayers dollars have been unjustly
spent in a lawsuit that was targeted at protecting the competitors
of Microsoft not consumer best interest. I do believe that some of
Microsofts licensing practices and their heavy-handed approach in
working with OEM system builders were in question. The trial and
settlement did make progress in that area despite the process being
in efferent at accomplishing these specific goals. After being in
the technology industry for well over 12 years now I can honestly
say that the actions of the DOJ did not reflect the best interest of
consumers the technology industry or this nation as a whole. At this
point in time proceeding with the settlement and curtailing the
actions of the remaining litigation against Microsoft would be the
best action taken for all involved.
Sincerely
Jason S. Harrison
MTC-00010867
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This country is so much better off because of Microsoft s
development of software that everyone can use. It is because it is
easy to use and because just about everyone who works with computers
uses commom software that Micorsoft has been so successful. This is
not monopolistic! Settle and let Microsoft and their competitors get
on with developing new and even better software instead of spending
so much time on this suit.
John DeWolf
MTC-00010868
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I personally think the economy has been greatly effected by the
government s attempt to break up microsoft. It appears to me that
the people who work hard and are successful or that contribute
anything to society are punished for their efforts. It is time the
producers benefit for a change and in the process the people as a
whole will benefit. I say it is time to let this thing go.
MTC-00010869
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough you ve gotten your pound of flesh from
MicroSoft. And their competitors are seeking the elimination of
MicroSoft because MicroSoft was a leader in the Field and they want
only to use the Government to get Microsoft out of their way.And the
TAX payers are tired of footing the bill even if you claim the
Litigants are footing all the costs. There could be better use of
the Judges time on more pertinent cases.
MTC-00010870
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i hereby strongly endorse this settlement. thank you
MTC-00010871
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Discontine any further action against Microsoft.
MTC-00010872
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To R. Hesse People with more education than I have come up with
the decision on the Microsoft thing and therefore it must be as
close to the fairest of outcomes concerning everyone effected. I
suppose in another 20 years or so we ll really know.
MTC-00010873
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle with Microsoft as soon as possible. enough is enough. Let
private enter- prise live thrive and be free of government control.
MTC-00010874
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I guess you can call it a win for Microsoft but I call it a
compromise in Capitalism and Freedom. The US was founded on the
principles of Capitalism and Freedom and we should strive to
maintain those principles. When IBM ran the PC show and everything
you bought had to be IBM compatible no one complained except for the
consumers. Microsoft came along and made a better product much
cheaper and easier to use and suddenly we have a problem...we have a
monopoly not unlike IBM had but because some politicians are in IBM
s pockets the DOJ was suckered into taking a communistic act.... We
have to breack up Microsoft Because of this action the US economy
was thrown into a recession. The suit can argue all they want but
many of us knew when we heard of the DOJ s plans exactly what would
happen. If I were to cause such an action that would affect the
entire country I would be in prison. A win for Microsoft? Maybe. We
will see.
MTC-00010875
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it concerns: Prolonging the case against Microsoft is a
waste of tax payers money. This litigation has gone on long enough.
Microsoft s compeditors should take the money they are spending to
prolong this litigation should be used to improve and research
products to compete with Microsoft. They are sore losers because
they didn t come up with the ideas first.
MTC-00010876
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 25375]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement with Microsoft is VERY appropriate. I am
tired of competitors who are not willing to work at competion tying
up our court system only to cause a higher cost to the consumer. Let
s see the courts start working on some real issues!!!
MTC-00010877
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft offer for selletment shoud be accepted and a closure
to this case. The case is slowing down industry.
MTC-00010878
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let the verdict stand. Our Gov.hounded the Auto Industry
so that Imports are taking more and more market share. Let s NOT
REPEAT!
MTC-00010879
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is fair. Any company in the past had the
opportunity to come up with an operational system if they had wanted
to the only one was linux who has a lot of faithful followers. This
agreement allows competion from all who want to participate. Do
whats right and settle it now.
MTC-00010880
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let the decision stand as it is presently settled. Sincerely
Andrea Belz
MTC-00010881
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen: It is with great regret that I see this problem is
not fully resolved. As a senior citizen and retired living on income
derived from investments it is of the utmost concern that this
problem is finally resolved. Although I personally would not have
agreed to the terms of the agreement they being very bad for an
industry based on inovation since Microsoft feels they can continue
to support the public under these restrictions the matter should be
settled for the good of the consumer and the country.
Fred Budukiewicz
MTC-00010882
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the finding of the DOJ and support finalizing the case
as is. I sent two page fax last week explaining why.
MTC-00010883
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The last thing our economy and the entire high tech sector needs
is more uncertainty and regulation.
Please settle this lawsuit and end the persecution of Microsoft.
This litigation has caused more financial hardship to thousands
(probably millions) of stockholders and to the economy than anything
Microsoft could ever have done. It s time to move on and let
Microsoft get back to the business of doing what they do best--
making life better for all of us. Klara Hunt
MTC-00010884
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave the man alone he has done more for the computer world and
everyone else is jealous of it this is a free enterprize country isn
t it. What a waste of money the people of this country has had to
spend to do all of this court bussiness on MS.
MTC-00010885
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end this misguided suit against Microsoft. The
computer industry has benefitted greatly by Microsoft there is no
reason to continue to persecut this company. Stop wasting Microsoft
s and our country s time and money and end this suit. Sincerely
William M. Hopper
MTC-00010886
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s my strong belief that this settlement is in the best
interest of everyone--the technology industry the economy and
especially consumers. Since the settlement newspaper editorials from
across the nation and across the ideological spectrum have endorsed
the settlement. Microsoft competitors shouldn t be holding up this
settlement. We can t allow greedy companies to hold up progress.
Sincerely
Cosmo Stallone
MTC-00010887
From: sthompson292811MI@ comcast.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is a sad day for american businesses and the gerneral public
if the courts of this land allow competitors to sue because they can
not build a better mouse trap and courts order a these companies
from building better mouse traps. Where would this country be today
if the courts stifiled every inventive thought just because somebody
else yelled foul. Stop this insanity now and get this country back
on the road that was laid out for use by our founding fathers.
MTC-00010888
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end this on-going legal battle. A society that
chooses Capitalism believes in an ecomomic system marked by a free
market and open competition in which goods are produced for profit
labor is performed for wages and the means of production &
distribution are privately owned. Microsoft is a formidable
competitor that is to be admired. May the best company with the best
products & services succeed!!
MTC-00010889
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Take the settlement with Microsoft! I m so sick of this dragging
on--for what? Some jealous competitors who whine? Focus efforts
where it s really needed not in the already-competitive world of
technology.
MTC-00010890
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please approve the settlement made between the federal
government and various state attorneys general with Micrdosoft.
Enough already!!!
MTC-00010891
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Do not attempt to change the current court decision of Nov. 2001
MTC-00010893
From: Chris Norloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I find the
proposed settlement weak, and not in the customers' best interests.
The proposed settlement will not ensure competition in the
marketplace, and will not restrain Microsoft from further
monopolistic practices.
thank you,
Chris Norloff
508 N. West St.
Falls Church, VA
22046-2517
MTC-00010894
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Penalties
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed settlement
being considered in the case against Microsoft. Not only will the
settlement in its current form do nothing to restrict Microsoft's
monopoly, it does not
[[Page 25376]]
actually punish the corporation for a crime of
which it has already been found guilty. Therefore, the settlement
should include components that force Microsoft to open its
documentation so that other companies can design software to make
the computer industry truly competitive. This is the reasoning
behind antitrust laws, is it not. Furthermore, Microsoft must be
stopped from including their software as a prepackaged part of
virtually every personal computer on the market these days. I chose
not to use the Windows operating system and was extremely distressed
when attempting to buy a new computer that I had to subsidize
Microsoft with the purchase price of my computer since I could not
find one in any mainstream store that did not come with Microsoft
software pre-installed. This is an intolerable and monopolistic
practice that should be stopped. As a concerned consumer, citizen
and someone interested in the fate of information technology, I
humbly ask that the proposed settlement be reconsidered so that it
will indeed prohibit Microsoft from retaining its monopoly in the
computer industry. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Patrick D. Murphree
1015 N. College Ave,
#1
Bloomington, IN 47404
MTC-00010895
From: Terri [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:52pm
Subject: accept settlement
Reed and Terri Dow
12302 NW43rd Court
Vancouver,WA 98685
360-574-9641
A HREF=``mail to:terridow@ aol.com''>[email protected]/A>
U.S.Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601D Street, #1200
Washington,DC 20530
Email:A HREF=``mail to: [email protected]
''>[email protected]/A> January 14, 2002
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call
'product tying' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for 'tying' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court'drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.'
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation -the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMsto preserve visible access
to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
Reed and Terri Dow
MTC-00010896
From: Frank Baxter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:52pm
Subject: Objection to the settlement
As a member of the computing industry, I do not see how the
proposed settlement even comes close to providing remedy for the
antitrust violations committed by Microsoft. This company has
continually removed competition using their OS monopoly, raised
prices for inferior products, and forced consumers to pay for
software that they do not use nor want. Despite this, the settlement
fails to address these issues, nor any of the other issues they were
already found guilty of in a court of law.
Although I understand that the events on 10/11 may cause some to
think a quick settlement, no matter how weak, is a service to the
country. I completely disagree. Forcing consumers to pay a Microsoft
tax will do nothing to promote the economy. The proposed changes to
their operating system will reinforce their monopoly, forcing
consumers to pay even more charges for transactions that only
Microsoft will be able to broker.
I urge you to reconsider this settlement now, before it is too
late.
Sincerely,
Frank Baxter
CTO Synthesys Technologies, Inc.
65 Stansel Court
Springboro, OH 45066
MTC-00010897
From: nharding%[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the Bush administration in calling for a settlement in
the Microfost case.
Nathaniel Harding
Norman, Oklahoma
MTC-00010898
From: Pete Norloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The
proposed settlement is weak and not in consumer's or the country's
best interests. The proposed settlement will not ensure competition
in the marketplace, and will not restrain Microsoft from further
monopolistic practices. Further, the proposed settlement fails to
extract ill-gotten gains that Microsoft has obtained illegally.
Sincerely,
Peter Norloff
10820 Miller Road
Oakton, VA 22124
703-938-4343
MTC-00010899
From: David Schaub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 3:41pm
I would like to voice my concern about Department of Justice's
settlement with Microsoft.
David Schaub
4507 Hollow Oaks Dr.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
[email protected]
MTC-00010900
From: Frank Vitello
[[Page 25377]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Comments
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
This will serve as the comments of Defenders of Property Rights
on the settlement agreement that the Department of Justice has
proposed in its antitrust litigation with the Microsoft Corporation.
Settlement of the litigation with Microsoft is in the best interest
of all parties involved to avoid prolonging a questionable case,
which seemed to be initiated more with the anticipated remedy of a
multi-million dollar settlement as an objective than sound antitrust
policy. Moreover, as our comments below discuss, settlement of this
litigation is in the public interest.
Settlement of This Lawsuit Will Bring to An End A Lawsuit That
Was At Odds With The Constitution's Protections of Intellectual
Property. When the Constitution was ratified, the framers
highlighted the importance of protecting intellectual property
rights. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution authorizes
Congress to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' U.S. Const.
art. I, ? 8.
Moreover, all property rights, including that of intellectual
property, were given further protection by the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, which states: ``no property shall be taken
for public use, without just compensation.'' U.S. Const. amend. V.
The purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to ensure that property owners
have the right to possess, use and profit from their property,
whether that property is tangible in the form of a family farm, or
intangible in the form of a computer operating system. There is no
question that a bulk of Microsoft's vast assets is comprised of
intangible intellectual property, commonly known as patents,
copyrights, trade secrets, brand names, market presence and
intellectual know-how. In its zeal to enforce the antitrust laws,
however, the Justice Department has apparently forgotten the
Constitution protects all forms of property, including Microsoft's
intellectual property.
Antitrust Enforcement Should Enhance, Not Undermine The
Constitutional Protections of Intellectual Property. In its
antitrust litigation with Microsoft, the Justice Department has
proposed that Microsoft be broken into smaller pieces or that
Microsoft should be forced to fully or partially relinquish its
intellectual property rights to competitors. In addition, the
Justice Department has suggested that Microsoft be forced to
disclose its ``source code,'' or the software blueprint for its
operating system, Windows, which some consider to be the ``crown
jewel'' of the software industry. Such disclosure would allow
competitors to gain access to immediate updates on the Windows
system so they can also release their updated software at the same
time that Microsoft releases a new Windows version.
Since competitors, on average, usually release a new product a
year after Microsoft releases a new Windows version, the
government's plan would preclude Microsoft from, for a limited time,
profiting exclusively from the fruits of its labor and investment--
which strikes at the heart of the free-market economy. If the
government were to have its way, not only would it be destroying the
free-market principles on which this country is based, but it would
also be taking private property for public use, without payment of
just compensation, contrary to the Fifth Amendment's guarantees. See
Kimball Laundry v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 3-4, 11 (1949)
(holding that loss of intellectual property--skilled management,
good will and advertising--was taken and just compensation due:
``[T]he intangible acquires a value . . . no different than the
value of the business' physical property.'').
Microsoft has indeed been successful in the use of its
intellectual property rights. However, Microsoft entered the
industry thirteen years ago, when computer software and related
technological investments were risky financial undertakings. As
such, Microsoft earned its wealth as a result of its original ideas
and innovative technological breakthroughs in the computer software
industry. Thus, by virtue of the patent and copyright laws, the
reward to Microsoft for the creation of its intellectual property
rights has already been weighed against the rights of its
competitors. To force Microsoft to give up its hard-earned property
rights, and the reward resulting therefrom, is not the valid
enforcement of antitrust laws, but an uncompensated taking of
private property.
In short, the Microsoft antitrust litigation has posed various
legal and constitutional barriers for the government. Defenders of
Property Rights applauds the current administration in its efforts
to put an end to the lawsuit. We agree that now is the time to
foster the growth of American companies and to encourage the
innovative, entrepreneurial spirit of Americans, and not to continue
to selectively pursue the innovators of our country, at all costs--
at the expense of the economy, the consumer and our Constitution. In
sum, Defenders strongly encourages the Justice Department to approve
the proposed settlement agreement and finally put an end to its case
against Microsoft.
Yours truly,
Nancie G. Marzulla
President, Defenders of Property Rights
Frank A. Vitello
Defenders of Property Rights
1350 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 410
Washington, DC 20036
202. 822.6770
Toll Free: 866. 630.9787
202. 822.6774 facsimile
www.yourpropertyrights.org
MTC-00010901
From: Joe Maranto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have attached my thoughts on the above referenced settlement
for your consideration. Please let me know that you have received
this letter. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Joe Maranto
Joseph V. Maranto
8 Graveswood Court
Baltimore, MD 21234-1451
January 14, 2002
BY FAX 1-202-307-1454
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to ask that you give your immediate approval to the
agreement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I
believe this settlement is fair and equitable for the country and
for business alike. Microsoft has done as much for the computer
trade and its users as Goodyear has done for auto production.
Microsoft is the wheels and fuel that make computers work.
With all due respect, I believe the antitrust suit brought
against Microsoft was unnecessary and unfounded. Personally, I use
Microsoft Windows out of choice because Microsoft's software
programs are the best on the market. It is my understanding that
Microsoft has agreed in the settlement to assist the computer
industry by opening up its intellectual property rights to its
Windows internal interfaces, and license its property on a non-
discriminatory basis. This is bound to stimulate the economy and do
great things for the entire industry.
In conclusion, I am asking you to allow Microsoft to get back to
business without this cloud and legal case as a major distraction to
its daily business of developing the best software in the world.
Respectfully Yours,
Joseph V. Maranto
VP Cignal Mortgage Corp
MTC-00010902
From: sharpe jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft
120 Greensview Dr.
Madison, MS 39110-8854
601-856-2950
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 14, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
There appears to be an opportunity to settle the Microsoft
antitrust case now. In view of all the other pressing matters facing
us, I would urge you to finalize the Microsoft case as soon as
possible. My request is not made because I like Microsoft, but
because I feel they were shaken down by the previous administration.
Their crime was standardizing and promoting software that the entire
world liked and used- except for a few of their competitors! These
products increased US productivity greatly and the price was
reasonable.
It was a very sad day when the Clinton DOJ attacked one of the
crown jewels of American
[[Page 25378]]
technology and helped accelerate the
decline in the US equity market. I pray you will do the right thing
and close this bad chapter as soon as possible. Thanking you, I
remain
Sincerely,
John S. Jones
MTC-00010903
From: jack williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft
The purpose of this letter is to express my ardent support for
the settlement reached last November between the department of
justice and Microsoft. As a corporation, Microsoft has done more for
the technology industry than any other corporation in American
history. In turn, the litigation against Microsoft for the past
three years is matched by the decline in our once prosperous
technology industry. This coincidence must not be underestimated.
The settlement shows much compromise between the two sides of
this issue. Microsoft has agreed for the creation of an outside
technical committee. Under the stipulations of the agreement, this
committee is to come as an outside third party. The purpose of this
committee is to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement.
This technical committee, then, will assure the efficacy of the
agreement.
I hope you will consider the plight of the technology industry
when reviewing this settlement. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jack E. Williamson
MTC-00010904
From: Kelly McCullough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I've been involved in computer centered physics curriculum
development for more than 6 years, and have used both Microsoft and
non-Microsoft operating systems, development tools, and
applications. I am deeply by the proposed settlement, and i would
very much like to to see Judge Kollar-Kotelly address these flaws.
What is included:
1. A five-year limit. Microsoft's antitrust begotten profits
have accrued over a decade of illegal monopolistic practices. Five
years seems inadequate to restore the marketplace to a level of
normal competition. Even if the settlement didn't provide mechanisms
(noted below) which Microsoft can use to hamper the implementors of
the proposed settlement, the enforcement period should be at least
equal to Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Also, certain
structural elements of a sound settlement should probably be
enforced in perpetuity.
2. Microsoft's voice on the technical committee. It seems
unreasonable for a confirmed monopolist to choose its guards. Given
the pervasive influence of Microsoft in the market, and its
persistent monopolistic behavior, it is dubious proposition at best
that their chosen representative, and representative who can be
vetoed by that person, will primarily have the interests of the
public at heart. Watchdogs chosen by Microsoft, on the Microsoft
payroll, and working fulltime in secrecy on the Microsoft campus, do
not meet any reasonable criteria for impartiality.
3. Crafting a feature that allows Microsoft to dispute costs
gives Microsoft a built-in mechanism for sandbagging. Quote:
``Microsoft may, on application to the Court, object to the
reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. On any such
application: (a) the burden shall be on Microsoft to demonstrate
unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) shall be entitled to
recover all costs incurred on such application (including reasonable
attorneys? fees and costs), regardless of the Court's disposition of
such application, unless the Court shall expressly find that the
TC's opposition to the application was without substantial
justification.'' Given the vast wealth Microsoft has obtained by
monopolistic abuses of the consuming public, setting enforcement
expenses as ``reasonable'', and giving Microsoft a mechanism for
subpoenaing their overseers is an invitation to trouble. Microsoft's
bearing of the ``expenses'' of such activity will be trivial, and
more than compensated by the implicit protection of any future
monopolistic behavior concealed from the technical committee. It
also allows Microsoft to run out the clock at a very cheap cost. The
technical committee should have a free hand, and an unlimited budget
underwritten by Microsoft.
4. Microsoft has implicit control over who is permitted to be
their competitor. Quote: ``(c) meets reasonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and
viability of its business...'' Why does Microsoft get to apply the
litmus test of the ``authenticity and viability'' of who is
permitted to see their API's? Quote: ``Microsoft shall disclose to
ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the
Microsoft Developer Network (``MSDN'') or similar mechanisms, the
APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. ``
Doesn't Microsoft have control over who participates in their
proprietary MSDN program, and don't they set criteria of
participation (eg, nondisclosure, etc)? This is one of the very
mechanisms by which Microsoft has implemented its monopolistic
strategy. Such APIs should be *freely distributed* to the *public*,
not sold to the few acceptable competitors that Microsoft
designates, on terms of their own setting. Allowing Microsoft to use
their MSDN mechanism and decide which business is authentic and
viable is too weak. It specifically gives Microsoft a mechanism to
exclude open source developers, academics, etc.
What is left out:
5. Recompense. Microsoft has illegally profited for years from
its monopolistic practices. That money rightfully belongs to the
public, and should be returned to the public. It should be
fairly straightforward to measure the average profitability of their
nearest competitors vs. Microsoft's illegally enhanced profit
margins, thus determining how much Microsoft illegally profited.
Perhaps this money could be funneled into educational grants for
computer hardware and (completely non-Microsoft) software for
elementary, secondary, and college tuition. These funds should
easily cover the expense of putting (for example) a MacIntosh
computer on the desktop of every student in public schools, state
universities, etc.
6. Punitive damages. Over and above returning the ill-gotten
gains to the public, Microsoft should be penalized for their illegal
activities.
7. Document formats. Microsoft enforces its monopoly by keeping
its file formats proprietary. Since Microsoft chooses which
competing operating systems to support with their applications,
companies who have been monopolistically pressured into buying
Microsoft applications (eg, MS Office) are trapped on the Microsoft
platform by their inability to migrate their (proprietary and
copyrighted) corporate data to other operating systems. This is key.
Microsoft applications compel users to stick with Microsoft
operating systems, this perpetuating their monopoly. The only remedy
would be to open up their file formats (or possibly to require them
to provide fully and publicly documented import/export features that
allowed users to migrate *all their data* (including ``objects''
such as forms, reports, etc.) to competing products, and to likewise
recreate data from compliant import files (even if created by
competing products). In other words, the public deserves a way to
get all their data out of Microsoft products, and Microsoft should
pay for providing such a mechanism.
I've heard the rationale that punishing Microsoft would be bad
for the economy. Does that mean that we have two brands of justice?
One for those who commit crimes large enough to endanger the economy
and one for people who commit smaller thefts? Secondly, the leverage
Microsoft has in the economy was acquired through illegal
monopolistic practices, and the judgment should not perpetuate the
consequences of these practices. Third, monopolists have always been
bad for the economy, the contrary arguments of monopolists
notwithstanding. And finally, the amount of money from recompense
and punitive damages, pumped back into the economy in such a way as
to stimulate competition in the computer software field, should
provide an enormous economic boost.
American citizens are counting on Judge Kollar-Kotelly to
faithfully perform her solemn duty to uphold justice by preventing
this weak and flawed proposed settlement from being implemented, and
properly addressing the true interests of the United States of
America by returning the ill-gotten wealth from Microsoft to the
public from whom they stole it, further penalizing Microsoft
financially, and crafting structural remedies to prevent Microsoft
from committing the same crimes again.
Sincerely,
[[Page 25379]]
MTC-00010905
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Its time to let this settlement go through. Greedy attorneys
should not have more. Its time to let commercial interests work for
the market--not being tied up in courts. This country was developed
on free enterprise. This is a good settlement. Thank you.
Ray Rogers
MTC-00010906
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the agreement between DOJ and Microsoft and end
the infernal uncertainty that s plagued the markets for years. The
suit against Microsoft has probably done more to undermine both
investor confidence and citizen confidence in government than any
single occurance over past decades. Please put an end to it!
MTC-00010907
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Time for the states attorney generals to call it quits and get
about the business for which they were elected and stop wasting
taxpayers dollars. The settlement is more than fair. Competitors
should not use the government as a crutch.
MTC-00010908
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft are the robber barons of today. they steal from the
poor or at best pennies on the dollar then claim it as their own.
they eliminate competition by hiding their operating system features
until they have announced their own products which corner the market
before anyone can compete. their contributions to politicians to
stop their split is pure pay off. do not let them get away with
this. They stifle creativity stifle a free flowing marketplace by
blocking others from competing and prevent BETTER products from
entering the marketplace by their operating system monopoly. Its
like the Detroit car people always saying they knew what people
wanted...then the Japanese came along and proved them wrong.
Microsoft needs COMPETITION to improve and we need an open market
place to give consumers a better option.
Microsoft products are buggy crash often and yet they have
cornered the market because they own the monopoly. This is at the
core of the anti trust laws. stop them and stop them now.let new
businesses grow and thrive by preventing them from their continued
cornering of the market place and the flooding of same with mediocre
products.
MTC-00010909
From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to see the Microsoft antitrust case settled now and
finally. As a consumer of software products (I am a writer of
fiction and other literary materials) I deeply appreciate the way
that Microsoft has made my work easier and much less expensive. They
should not be punished for being successful they should not be
penalized for making computer technology affordable and they should
not be made less competitive despite the wishes of their
competitors. Microsoft competed in the marketplace and won and their
opponents have tried to trump their triumph by competing
politically. Those competitors should not get away with that.
MTC-00010910
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a proven monopolist and is currently working to
keep the prices of personal computers and personal computer
operating systems unnaturally high with their monopoly status. The
company should be broken up into separate companies for each of it s
operating systems (a company for MS-DOS Windows 95 Windows 98
Windows 2000 Windows NT etc) and a company that sells software to
run on personal computers. Monopolies like Microsoft hurt consumers
and keep technology out of the hands of the poor and force
obsolescence on older computers by refusing to support older
operating systems.
MTC-00010911
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop the Microsoft law suit and take the settlement as
Offered. We think enough is enough!!
MTC-00010912
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please press forward to settle this matter without further
litigation. I think the settlement agreement is reasonable. It
should be settled promptly.
MTC-00010913
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let the dead dog lie.
MTC-00010914
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel if tech. companies want to develop new and better
products. They should do so. Let the public decide if they want it
or will buy it. We have so many regulation I bet their forgotten
who or when it become law.
MTC-00010915
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s time we get off Microsoft s back. Why are we penalizing a
corporation for being competitive? Because they re successful? That
certainly appears to be the case. The original argument-- Explorer
vs Netscape--was decided by customers like me. My ISP provided
Netscape with its package. I got rid of netscape because it did not
satisfy my needs. Case closed. My decision. No coercion from
Microsoft.
That s why Microsoft has been successful: people like their
product. When the whiners produce a better product people will buy
it.
MTC-00010916
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement reached by the Department of Justice is
fair and equitable and deserves to be approved. Please end this case
which has been promoted by Microsoft s competitors from the very
beginning and has nothing to do with harm to consumer choice. Thank
you James F. Shanley
MTC-00010917
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i feel this was a fair settlement for concerned.i also think the
remaining attorney generals should settle with what Microsoft has
offered.
MTC-00010918
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The US Justice Dept. and the States Attorney Generals case to
bring down one of the most successful American companies has hurt
and is hurting not only consumers like myself . . . but ALL of the
high tech industries. Competitors of Microsoft who were the
motivation for this ill advised proceeding have put their self
interest above the interests of America. This proceeding has given
our GLOBAL competitors precious time to play catchup . . . providing
them with the opportunity to steal our momentum as we lead the world
into the Information Age. Enough is enough!!! Please settle this
case and lets get back to what we all do best . . . and if
Microsofts competitors can t compete with better more reliable
products . . . then that is not Mirosofts fault. Consumers like
myself will always act in our self interest and buy the superior
product at the better price . . . thats why today I own windows
office canvas quicken and other products . . . not all Microsoft . .
. but the ones I consider the best value. Government should not be
meddling in free enterprise. Settle this case now so we may get on
with
[[Page 25380]]
life! And our 401K s can recover from the justice departments
tragic fumble. Bill Trask
MTC-00010919
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This was a case that should never have happened. The economy has
suffered enough because of it let it end NOW.
MTC-00010920
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft ALONE the judgment is enough!!
MTC-00010921
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it was fair judgment that was given.
MTC-00010922
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is disgusting from a consumer
standpoint. It does nothing to improve the climate of competition in
the Operating System/software sector. Microsoft s contention that
the status quo allows for improved innovation is patently absurd on
its face and I think actually this proposed solution will have a
continuing negative effect on improvement in the software field.
Microsoft has in the past and continues in the present to attempt to
block any competitive innovations. They have perverted standards to
their own benefit and refused to allow others to write software
which will work well with the Windows OS. They provide crippled
renditions of proprietary software included with their own in
attempt to drive competitors from the marketplace. Microsoft have
made it virtually impossible to purchase a consumer grade computer
with any operating system other than windows. My own personal
experience has required me to spend over a thousand dollars during
the past 5 years for software that I have never used and will not
use in the future. By requiring that peripheral companies to only
develop drivers for the Windows OS I am prevented from using many
pieces of hardware that would make my computers more functional. I
think the proposed solution should be dismissed out of hand. It does
nothing to protect consumers and the computer industry in general
from the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. It contains no real
penalty for MS and encourages continued anticompetitive practices on
Microsoft s part.
MTC-00010923
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Too much taxpayers monies have already been wasted on this
matter and now the whiners want to waste more. It s over let s move
on . . .!
MTC-00010924
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement with Microsoft is a win/win situation. Instead of
a few people getting a few dollars this settlement will provide an
opportunity for students to have computers in the classroom. It is a
positive step forward in the No child will be left behind effort of
this administration.
MTC-00010925
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a monopoly for the people. Any action taken against
it should not be designed to hurt the company which has done great
things for us but instead to motiviate them to help more. The
settlement is a great idea and should be allowed to stand.
MTC-00010926
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s time to end this suit. From the beginning it was obvious
that this suit was brought about by a few companies that could not
compete on a level playing field with Microsoft. So they have tried
to change the rules to inhibit inovation and creativity so their
inferior products would be able to compete. As an end user of
software products I have no allegiance to any particular company. If
Sun Novell and the others can make a better product I will buy it.
If they can not I will not. I don t need the government telling me
what products I should buy or supporting inferior products just
because they have many congressmen and attorney generals backing
them in their individual states. In Utah (a Novell owned state) it
is obvious the only reason they are pursuing this case is to further
the profits of Novell not the pursuit of justice. If Sun and Novell
would put as much effort in making better products as they have done
in trying to bring down Microsoft they may have already produced a
better product that clearly outsells Microsoft.
MTC-00010927
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel it is time to settle this case. Our Government has let
our technology lead slip to Japan. All of the things Americans
invented and excelled in such as televisions VCR s camera s
microwave ovens automobiles stereo s machine tool s and many more.
We have a lead on the World in software let us support and not
destroy this. It appears a few States Attorney General are holding
up this settlement to further their own political carriers. Microsoft
produces the most productive software for our business and home use
at favorable prices.Lets let them continue so that our businesses
can continue to have the productivity lead we now enjoy.
MTC-00010928
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This whole thing should never have gone as far as it has.
Microsoft has done nothing wrong except be the biggest and the best
at what they do. Compettition is good for the soul of the company.
There have been many times where this is true. IBM and Xerox Apple
and Dell. If these companies cannot come out with a better product
to market to the general public then they don t deserve to be in
business. If Mircosoft was to be broken up it would just come back
bigger and stronger than before. All one needs is to look at the
phone companies like the Bells. They were accused of being A
monopoly . They were broken up and the came back bigger and
stronger. So lets leave well enough alone. If the others don t like
whats going on then like the saying goes if you can t stand the heat
get the heck out of the kitchen .
MTC-00010929
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We have had enough harassment of MSFT. It s time to knock it
off! Wrap up the suit against them and let private business get back
to work not force them to be tied up in litigation!. Stop listening
to anyone who doesn t like a company and tries to destroy that
company. Enough is enough.
MTC-00010930
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don t believe it was a good use of our tax dollars. Business
is business. There are far more important issues to research and
spend money on.
MTC-00010931
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is the biggest rip-off of
US industry and consumers that I have ever seen. I cannot imagine my
so called government agreeing with such a lame settlement. Arquments
as to the importance of the settlement to the ecomomy are specious
and in any event untrue. Microsoft broke the law. That conclusion is
very clear. Last I looked this country punished lawbreakers.
Microsoft should be severely punished. The proposed settlement does
not come close to severe punishment. It is possible that top
executives of the company should be imprisioned-yet there is no
mention of that possibility in anything I have read. Placing
appropriate restrictions on Microsoft given that the
[[Page 25381]]
company is a
monopoly will only help the US and world economy. Please understand
that competition is a good thing. Microsoft has clearly been proven
to be anti-competition and must be stopped. There is no other choice
if we wish to maintain a society free to make its own choices.
Indeed a society that actually has choices to make.
MTC-00010932
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are such urgent needs in this country such as public
education job creation etc... that I can t believe so much money and
time is being wasted on meddling with business. Microsoft and others
have created millions of jobs and dozens of markets in this country
and around the world. Let them continue to do so!
MTC-00010933
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is being punished for success. Microsoft compelled
noone to buy its product. Leave Microsoft alone and let the public
decide what it wants by using its buying power. All the states want
is MONEY.
MTC-00010934
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a small (100 share) stockholder I perhaps should not have a
say but I think we should put it behind us and go on down the road!
MTC-00010935
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am encouraged by the thought of an end to this needless
persecution of Microsoft. As a developer of software it is a very
disturbing thought that the federal government can initiate legal
action in spite of overwhelming evidence of the non-existance of any
faults. I encourage the final resolution.
MTC-00010936
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is acceptable although it goes further than
necessry in punishing Microsoft. I feel that the case is still
tainted by the prejudice exhibited by Judge Jackson from the
beginning.
MTC-00010937
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is one of the best companies in US history and one of
the companies that has done the most for consumers. The bitterness
with which the government is harassing Microsoft is inexcusable. The
local phone companies are a true monopoly: they treat consumers like
dogs and use all their might to crush competitors. They are so
confident the government is looking the other way they don t even
try to hide. What does the government do to protect consumers and
competition from the local phone companies? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Instead they are bent on destroying one of the best assets this
country has ever created. Shame on you.
MTC-00010938
From: Joe Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 5:19pm
Subject: A few questions
Do the comments submitted to this email address get forwarded to
the presiding judge, or do they only get an internal review in the
DOJ? What is the deadline for comments on the proposed sellout by
the DOJ?
Thanks,
Joe Barr
MTC-00010939
From: rudy petorelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General,
Please stop wasting taxpayer money on the Microsoft
Investigation. Enough is enough.
Rudy Petorelli
Naples, Fl.
MTC-00010940
From: Rollo, Dan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm sending my comments regarding the proposed settlement
involving Microsoft distributing computer hardware and software to
schools. I believe this will not motivate Microsoft to stop anti-
competitive behavior, and will actually hurt Microsoft competitors
in the educational market. Also, the settlement does not appear to
address how to prevent Microsoft from forcing computer hardware
makers to install only Windows on new machines. The Be Operating
System was a viable, free alternative OS that was effectively killed
by Microsoft's exclusive license with hardware manufacturers which
prohibited the selling of new PC's with any other OS installed if
Windows was installed on that PC. This represents a clear lack of
choice for the consumer, that is perpetuated by Microsoft. Current
Microsoft licensing allows Microsoft to prevent consumers from ever
seeing any alternative Operating System, and this anti-competitive
behavior is not addressed in the proposed settlement.
Finally, the damage done by Microsoft to the Java platform has
greatly delayed the availability of alternatives to many common
software programs (i.e. Office productivity applications like Word
Processors and Spreadsheets) that could run on any OS. By preventing
consumers from gaining access of alternative OS's and alternative
Programs, Microsoft is bolstering it's monopoly position. I believe
any settlement must provide enforceable constraints on such
practices to prevent more damage to consumers, and I feel the
current proposed settlement will not provide effective protection
of consumers and our right to choose.
Thank You for you attention,
Dan Rollo
MTC-00010941
From: J-I-T-W-P-M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am Raj Bhatti, the executive director of Freedom Christian
Trasitional Aftercare at Jesus Is The Way Prison Ministries. I am a
certified Substance Abuse Counselor by State of Illinoise as well as
by the World Federation of Therapeutic Communities, New York.
I came to know through a very close friend about some of the
aspects of the Proposed Settlement made by the Justice Department
with Microsoft, and I am very unhappy. Firstly, how could the
Justice Department grant Microsoft a government-mandated monopoly of
the software industry and even worse--other technology markets?
Definitely such decision would seriously jeopardize all serious
competitors--both now and in the future. We're living in a free and
open market society, and one of the advantages of having such a
system is that people have the right to choose from among several
brands of one single item, and in this case, software. I would want
to see a healthy competition of several software companies, in order
to make prices competitive as well. Secondly, how could the Justice
Department condone Microsoft for violating the antitrust law and
even for its illegal conduct e.g. bribing other competitors in order
to stop their operation. What is the Justice Department's motive
behind this action?
Your Honor, I would want Microsoft be brought to justice
upholding to democratic values. Sadly to say that monoplies are the
trade mark of monarchs and communist governments.
Very Truly,
Dr. Raj Bhatti
P.O. Box 184
Rantoul, IL 61866
MTC-00010942
From: Mac McNally
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
U.S.--D.O.J. 1/14
The Microsoft settlement that was agreed upon recently fits what
is needed for the situation. Any further prolonging the case will do
just one thing, fatten the already fat pockets of more lawyers.
There should be no need to go any further than to settle this thing.
For some reason I do not see Microsoft as the villian that some
do and in my use of microsoft products, I have always felt I had
someone to turn to and get aid if needed. It has been a long
hassle--let it die. F. E. ``Mac'' McNally, Palm Shadows RV--Site
31--Donna TX
MTC-00010943
From: Robert Anderson
[[Page 25382]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:14pm
Subject: Proposed Anti-Trust Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am very alarmed that you have decided to proceed with a
settlement arrangement that doesn't resolve the issues at hand.
Having been involved with personal computing since the early 1980s,
I firmly hold that the bundling approach that Microsoft took was
truly an attempt to gain monopoly power, and was not done in the
spirit of innovation, rather, was done to simply enrich MSFT's
stockholders through unfair competition. Any settlement must not
only address the fact that Microsoft now enjoys dominance in the PC
operating system environment, but must also set rigid rules that
prevent them from doing so again.
The ultimate, and in my mind, most beneficial antitrust
settlement would involve a breakup of Microsoft into two operating
entities, Operating Systems and Applications. This type of breakup
would ensure that multiple companies could fairly complete against
one another in a market niche. For example, Lotus 1-2-3 is nearly
non-existent, despite its initial market share/acceptance. Why?
Simply put, Microsoft was able to out ``engineer'' them by knowing
the strategic plans that the Windows operating system group was
going to take . and to have access to the codebase used to create
the varying types of Windows. These types of parallels can be drawn
on nearly any area in which Microsoft has gained a huge market
advantage over a competitor (word processing, database and so on)
Having experts at Redmond, overseeing compliance, but having their
salaries paid by Microsoft also seems like a conflict of interest if
there ever was one.
I agree with some in the community that believe that this
constant cloud over Microsoft's head is a distraction for the
nation's economic needs. but I don't use that excuse as a way to
justify a quick, but faulty, settlement. Instead, I urge DOJ to act
swiftly, but forcefully. Either financially hit the company (by
forcing payments to consumers for an amount equal to the profits
illegally generated by the monopoly) or break-up the company in a
manner that will ensure that there will/would be more competition in
the application and operating system development areas.
A breakup, although wrought with some initial complications, can
be one of the best solutions for the country. as two new high-tech
firms would be formed from one monopoly. and enterprising companies
may take advantage of the level playing field when it comes to
getting ``inside'' information from developers.
Sincerely,
Robert Anderson
2950 Tumbleweed Ln SE #C230
Port Orchard, WA 98366-2127
MTC-00010944
From: Federico Vezzani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
please stop Microsoft's monopoly.
Federico Vezzani
MTC-00010945
From: Melissa A. Kirby
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Please do not allow this interruption in the computer technology
business to continue any longer. As a citizen of Washington state, I
encourage you to accept the proposed settlement in the anti-trust
case involving Microsoft. This settlement is appropriate and
reflects a triumph of the rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors
and other critics of the proposed settlement make the core of their
objections a call for more stringent restrictions, ranging from
prohibition of what they call ``product tying'' to breakup of the
company. More extreme critics complain that the remedies do not
address products that were not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e.,
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
Melissa Kirby
MTC-00010946
From: Dana Goldsmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am writing to you regarding the Department of Justice's
Proposed Final Judgment regarding the Microsoft case. Over the past
several weeks I've had a chance to study this proposed Agreement and
am shocked by what I've found.
It appears that the Justice Department has ignored ALL the court
findings in the case (every single court found that MS had
aggressively abused its monopoly position for its own competitive
advantage)and has basically agreed not only to NOT penalize MS for
its long standing antitrust abuses, but to actually grant MS a
defacto monopoly in the high-tech industry going forward. I cannot
tell you what a disaster this would be for all of us that are NOT
Microsoft minions, and especially for those of us working with or
dependant upon Java, Linux, AOL, the Mac...or indeed ANY non-
Microsoft code base or service.
As a member of the high-tech industry, I strongly urge you to
carefully review the Justice Department's Final Judgment and then
act accordingly. The future of the high-tech industry and all of its
members will be greatly impacted by the outcome of this case.
Sincerely,
Dana M. Goldsmith
Silicon Valley, CA
MTC-00010947
From: John A Zambrano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft ATR case
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse,
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This
settlement is appropriate. Certain Microsoft competitors and other
critics of the proposed settlement make the
[[Page 25383]]
core of their objections
a call for more stringent restrictions. Why? More extreme critics
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not
even part of the case. These objections ignore the decision of the
Appeals Court that reversed much of Judge Jackson's original
findings. The Appeals Court threw out findings on many fronts
related to Microsoft's anti-monopolistic behavior.
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely addresses
each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, and does so
with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of violation
addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible access to
Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court. In my view, there
can be no valid objection to this settlement because every major
finding of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed with a
targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and prevents the
behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
John A. Zambrano
4205 227th Pl SW
MtLake Terr. Wa., 98043
MTC-00010948
From: gnsbarnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
301 Rochester Road NE
Poplar Grove, IL 61065-9274
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I feel that closing the book on the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit
is the best thing to do right now, especially since we are in the
middle of a recession.
This settlement will have a positive affect on the IT industry,
competition, and both the American and global economies. Under the
terms of the settlement, Microsoft will not retaliate against
software of hardware producers who develop or promote software that
competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes with
Windows. Nor may they retaliate against computer makers who ship
software that competes with anything in the Windows operating
system. The entire IT industry and competition in that industry
stands to benefit quite nicely from this. But clever people like me
who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity.
A plea for justice in a mechanized society.
I support the settlement, and hope that it is approved as soon
as possible.
Thank you.
But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there
isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight.
Sincerely for American renewal,
George Barnett
MTC-00010949
From: Meta Ukena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please know of my support for strong remedies designed to curb
Microsoft's abusive monopoly practices. Thank you.
Meta Ukena
1 Park Lane--2B
Mt. Vernon, NY 10552
MTC-00010950
From: Torgeir Kateraas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1-14-2002
I support Macrosft
Torgeir Kateraas
MTC-00010951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Bill Gates ought to be given a medal or a congratulatory
declaration. My husband and I are 73. If it were not for Bill Gates
improving the computer world, etc., we would not had been able to
have one nor been able to understand how to use one. He should not
be penalized. Phyllis Van Huss
MTC-00010952
From: David Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft: Extending Monopoly into the Mobile Internet
To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kutally- I am writing to voice my
opinion regarding the recent deal between the DOJ and Microsoft. As
an executive in Silicon Valley in the mobile internet/data space, I
am concerned that the recent decision will allow Microsoft to
propagate their unfair, anti-competitive and ruthless business
monopoly into the mobile data arena--which many are trumpeting as
the second coming of the internet. This deal could allow Microsoft
to expand its monopoly into the next frontier of mobile data.
Allowing this shadow to be cast over the mobile data arena will
deprive many start-ups who are the seedbed of innovation of the hope
and potential future success that drives them to take the risk in
the first place.
Please carefully review the facts and ensure that the framework
that gave rise to innovative business practices and thus Silicon
Valley as the engine behind the US economy is preserved.
thanks,
David Friedman
Principle
Friedman Advisors
David Friedman
[email protected]
MTC-00010953
From: Chris and Judy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I support the recent antitrust settlement and hope that it comes
to fruition as soon as possible. Although, I believe that Microsoft
did not make any antitrust violation, I believe this is the quickest
and best way to end this Clinton era witch hunt.
Under the terms of the settlement, there are generous provisions
that will allow software developers and computer makers to more
effectively promote their own products. Also Microsoft has agreed to
disclose technology and design future versions of Windows' with
competitive handicaps. As a shareholder I am paying the price for
this and I don't like it but it is more important to settle and get
this behind us.
Before the matter is settled I ask your office to attack the
nine states that want to continue litigation. They are showcasing
for political and self-interest reasons and not thinking about what
is in the best interest of the American people and American economy.
Settle!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Zahnle
2458 Westwood Ct
Clarkston, WA 99403
(509) 758-5869
MTC-00010954
From: Craig Morehouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 7:34pm
Subject: Make the penalty more harsh. Ban
[[Page 25384]]
them from governent use!
Dear Sirs;
I have been an IT professional for 22 years, and am currently
CEO of a high-tech Printing and Publishing firm.
12 years ago, I had to sue Microsoft because they refused to
license me a product that was already 5 years obsolete and out of
production, one that I could not even BUY if I wanted to. I was
trying to pay them for their MS-DOS 2.1 from 1984, and they wouldn't
allow it. They wanted me to license their current version only.
Well, I wanted the OLD version because I wanted to distribute a
collection of OLD programs, and needed that particular version of
COMMAND.COM to make the disk bootable and the programs runnable. The
current version wouldn't work; the programs would freeze, which is a
result of deliberate engineering on their part as well.
This is a sample of their attitude. They treat customers like
cattle, and they treat their Dealers like slaves.
In all my 22 years, I have NEVER, not on one occasion, had a
Microsoft product become my Product of Choice on its merits. On a
couple of occasions, they ranked as high as 2nd or 3rd, (this was
their Microsoft Pascal and Microsoft Fortan compilers in the mid
80's, but even then they were not the best product available.)
This company has succeeded like the Mob operations of New Jersey
and Chicago, and I think there was clear evidence to that effect in
the trial. They deserve nothing but the harshest teatment, and they
should be banished from authorized use by the U.S. Government, their
largest customer.
Craig Morehouse
President and CEO
The Foundation Project Inc.
Winter Park, Fl.
MTC-00010955
From: Edward F.(038)Kathryn J. Carrier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12-A Highland Road
Rochester, Pa. 15074
January 14, 2002
The Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I believe the antitrust case that has been brought against
Microsoft for the last three years is ridiculous and has been
dragged out too long. I am glad to see that Microsoft will not be
broken up, but feel that many of the concessions Microsoft will be
making are more than are really necessary. For one, the contractual
restrictions Microsoft will be making limit their ability to gain
and maintain market share. Companies in many other industries rely
on the ability to enter into third party agreements which demand
exclusive or fixed percentage distribution rights. Second, the
disclosure of Microsoft interfaces to competitors violates
Microsoft's intellectual property rights. Microsoft has spent
extraordinary amounts of time and effort to develop their technology
and it would undermine the whole reason for being innovative in a
business if their developments become free information for everyone.
The bottom line is that it is in the best interest of the
American public to have this matter settled. It will be good for the
states, the IT industry, for Microsoft and for the economy. Thank
you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Kathryn J. Carrier
MTC-00010956
From: Chatfield (038) Osborn Family
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general @po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/14/02 7:59pm
Subject: MIRCROSOFT Antitrust Comment
Dear Department of Justice,
I am concerned that the Microsoft's proposed punishment does not
adequately (nothing?) to address correcting is predatory antitrust
behavior that stifles others innovation and rewards them for being
big and continuing to control the desktop AND the applications that
run on the operating system and desktop. My personal opinion is that
short of splitting the company, the only thing that might help is
forcing them to sell a completely stripped version of their
operating system at a correspondingly low price.
They have destroyed all competition not only for the operating
system, one operating system probably enough just like one gauge of
railroad track, but also destroyed all competition for applications
on the operating system (read trains, shipping companies, etc.) I
suggest you revisit separating the operating system division of the
company from the applications division.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Ronald J Osborn
5301 Talbot's Landing
Ellicott City, MD 21043
[email protected] (for now, soon to be [email protected])
MTC-00010957
From: Peter Rulison
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peter Rulison
P.O. Box 644
Kremmling, CO 80459-0644
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating
and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting
valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Peter Rulison
MTC-00010958
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern;
I am appalled at the terms of the settlement. If the same terms
were applied to any of the other corporations convicted of breaking
antitrust laws, there would be an outcry from other companies and
the public.
Richard F. Santopietro, PhD
MTC-00010959
From: Wilbur W. Wiley
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wilbur W. Wiley
PO Box 285
Chester Heights, PA 19017
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wilbur W. Wiley
[[Page 25385]]
MTC-00010960
From: FULTZ Randall A
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:05pm
Subject: Please end Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
Dear Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
I am aware of Microsoft's unprecedented market dominance, and I
do continue to use their products. But I do not feel it is in the
best interests of American enterprise for the DOJ or the US
Government to support the ongoing monopolistic practices of
Microsoft.
Open competition and fair-market practices MUST be upheld in
this landmark case, or else the current rate of technological
growth, and the development of better, more stable, innovative
products will surely suffer.
I am also concerned that Microsoft's lack of meaningful market-
share competition for alternative Operating Systems, Web-browsers
and Windows-based software, can only lead to increasingly poorer
functionality in their product lines and an ever-increasing
disregard for the need of America's business, corporate and home-
based consumers.
Please deal responsibly with Microsoft--end the monopoly, now!
I request you immediately stop Microsoft's regrettable dominance
and control of America's Information Systems. Help keep America
free!
Sincerely,
Randall Alan Fultz
--Randy Fultz
Oregon Employment Department
MTC-00010961
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I understand that we are in a public comment period between now
and January 28th after which the District Court will determine
whether the Microsoft settlement is in the ???public interest.??? As
a concerned citizen and a taxpayer, I am writing to tell you that I
believe the settlement is fair and just and that I believe that the
case should be settled so we can all move forward.
This case has been a complete waste of the taxpayers' money and
has done much damage to Microsoft, one of the most important engines
in our entire economy. Let's settle this case and get it behind us.
Regards,
William Kennedy
MTC-00010962
From: Deo Recaido
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a programmer and honestly speaking i am using microsoft
products on my day to day job. As much as i hate microsoft products,
i cannot do anything as it is being used by the company where i work
for. i actually prefer other softwares than that of microsoft. it's
a shame that when somebody is going up and leaving us behind, we
would try to pull him down in any way. why do most people complain
when they feel they are being defeated? It is hard to imagine the
kind of thinking people particularly those involved mainly in the
case, judges, attorneys, etc. What is ``monopoly''? i guess you have
a ``stupid'' and ``one-sided'' meaning for it.
this is in defense for microsoft but rather a personal opinion.
...:-)
MTC-00010963
From: Janet Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I agree with this settlement and sincerely hope that this matter
will be brought to an end. To be honest, I do not trust the
government to do what is best for me and my choices as a consumer.
In addition, the taxpayer money that has been spent on the pursuit
of Microsoft could very well have been spent on much more dangerous
and severe problems, such as, monitoring and tracking terrorists. I
truly believe that the Clinton justice dept. was by far the most
incompetent and corrupt, in addition to being an American nightmare.
MTC-00010964
From: Deb
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Judge Hesse,
Please do not accept the Microsoft settlement. Please only agree
to something that will:
(1) prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in the
future,
(2) spark competition in this industry, and
(3) deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Deborah Antkoviak
MTC-00010965
From: edge oo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
For the benifit of everyone that uses a computer please stop
microsofts monopoly.
MTC-00010966
From: Bill Barnhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2113 Arrowhead Drive
Olathe, KS 66062
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to express my opinions on the Microsoft antitrust
settlement. I do not believe the suit was fair to Microsoft to begin
with. The Microsoft Corporation and its employees have attained
their dominant status in the IT industry through hard work and
innovation, not through a concerted and conscious effort to
block the advances of competing software producers. Nevertheless,
Microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust laws and was
brought to trial in the federal courts to answer for these
violations. After three years of negotiation and mediation,
Microsoft and the Department of Justice finally came to an agreement
that would seem to be beneficial to Microsoft's competitors while at
the same time allowing Microsoft to remain intact. Unfortunately,
there are those who wish to see the settlement overturned and
Microsoft destroyed. This is extreme.
Microsoft does not need to be rent asunder. The settlement has
provided well for Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft has agreed to
license intellectual property rights that fall under terms of the
settlement to its competitors. Additionally, Microsoft will refrain
from retaliatory behavior when software is put on the market that
directly competes with Microsoft products. Microsoft will also not
enter into agreements wherein a third party is required to endorse
Microsoft programs or products either at a fixed percentage or
exclusively.
Mr. Ashcroft, I do not believe further litigation against
Microsoft is either necessary or wise. The economy has suffered
while Microsoft has been tied up in this suit, and the IT industry
has likewise been stunted in its growth. Microsoft has, through this
settlement, appeased the demands of justice. I urge you to let the
settlement stand. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Barnhart
[email protected]
MTC-00010967
From: Tony D
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Suit
I support Microsoft in this antitrust suit. I never thought the
suit should have been brought in the first place. I also, believe
the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
A. DeBerardino
23 Schooner Lane
Okatie, SC 29910
MTC-00010968
From: Joel Gossett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
U.S. Department of Justice,
The settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case is very
important. I have heard comments from my customers and family that
the case is a ``Joke'' ``not right'' ``not fair'' and I believe it
degrades the DOJ to a level that the American Public lose their
trust in our ``system''. Anytime a Judge is so obviously biased in
any type of case the people of this Country feel they could wind up
in front of a similar Judge. Settle this as fast as possible to
prevent greater erosion of public trust in our Justice system.
Joel Gossett
MTC
-00010969
From: Lock Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25386]]
Date: 1/14/02 8:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is my opinion that this suit be settled and the matter
closed. Enough public funds and times have been spent on trying to
disable a company that changed corporate America forever. Settle!!
Lock Hunter
Alabama
MTC-00010970
From: Harry Mullin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam;
I urge the Justice Department to end its litigation of Microsoft
and do what ever it can to end litigation by States. I am a long
time computer user beginning with the Apple Mac at its first
introduction. Microsoft has done nothing to hurt me as a user of its
products--quite the contrary, it has provided extraordinary
opportunity. As an independent developer and web designer I can only
applaud Microsoft's efforts in the computer field and look forward
to future development when the company is allowed to do so.
Thank you for your attention.
Harry Mullin
Laguna Niguel, CA
MTC-00010971
From: Miles B. Kehoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough already!
I am a partner in a small software development firm--I've been
making my living for over 25 years in computer programming and
consulting. Perhaps none of the organized Microsoft opposition are
happy with settling this unjust legal action by the United States:
they would have us step back into a time of operating system chaos
and incompatibility. None of the States Attorney Generals are
required by law to use Microsoft products; let them go out and buy a
competitive operating system and then find software to use with it.
There ARE operating system AND application choices out there. It
is not Microsoft's fault that their competitors, with less vision
and less concern for the ultimate end user, made serious business
and technical mistakes that caused their products to flounder while
Microsoft spent billions of dollars on user testing, quality
testing, and innovative software development. No company anywhere in
the technology world has done more for end users, developers, and
for the industry as a whole than Microsoft. The government, seeing
someone making a great deal of money in return for their investment,
has decided that the best way to get their piece of the action is to
hassle, fine, and intimidate Microsoft. When several competitors get
together to try to negatively impact another company in an industry,
it is called 'restraint of trade'--unless, that is, you can buy more
congressmen, senators, and politicians to rule in your favor.
It's no accident that the NASDAQ market index collapsed on the
day Microsoft was charged in this foolish waste of taxpayer money;
and that the entire industry has been depressed since the government
has been pursuing this folly.
Get it over--end the harassment and let the industry get back to
innovating.
Miles Kehoe
President
New Idea Engineering
[email protected]
408-446-3303
10140 Hillcrest Road
Cupertino CA 95014
MTC-00010972
From: nolandpeebles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Your Honor, Judge Kollar-Kotelly: I am a business consultant and
a user of Microsoft software. I do, however, urge you to rule that
Microsoft must comply with all previous court rulings and cease
their monopolistic practices. I support a fair business market place
and would expect a company of Microsoft's reputation to honor that
ethic, not control or force competitors out of business. Thank you.
Noland Peebles [email protected] 541.726.1361
MTC-00010973
From: Scott Guthery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:45pm
Subject: Candidate Gets 100% of the Votes
If a political candidate got 100% of the votes in an election,
would we disqualify him or her and declare the oppoenent the winner?
I don't think so. So why can the public elect a person unanimously
and not pick a product in the market place unaimously? Microsoft is
successful because Americans have voted with their dollars.
The government shouldn't be in the business of picking products
any more than they should be in the business of calling election
outcomes. Lots of us like Mr. Gates' products better than Mr.
Ellison's or Mr. McNealy's.
So be it!
Cheers, Scott
MTC-00010974
From: Lexx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Why can't we put this behind us for other more pressing matters.
Why can't the Department of Justice settle this matter...the users,
the employees, the stockholders, and the general public are
beginning to think there are some personal agendas going on with
reference to this suit.
ENOUGH ALREADY! SETTLE IT! GET ON TO IMPORTANT MATTERS!
MTC-00010975
From: Tom Layson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
At a time when the entire country is reeling from an economic
down turn, it is ridiculous to drag this issue out any further. The
political motivation behind the states refusing the settlement is
despicable. Our country and economy needs closure, not this kind
of divisiveness.
I urge you to see that ending this matter is in the public
interest. The terms of the settlement are tough, but fair. Our
country needs to dig itself out of this recession and further
punishing one of the few companies weathering the storm will only
hurt the employees of Microsoft, the people of Washington state and
the United States as a whole.
Thank you
Tom Layson
Software Design Lead
Microsoft Corporation
MTC-00010976
From: Milton Karafilis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You should settle the microsoft case as the settlement now
stands. If the settlement is for the People rather than Microsoft's
competitors what better way than to benefit School Chilren. M.
Karafilis
MTC-00010977
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I'm 55, married, children, homeowner, have voted both Democrat
and Republican, contribute to social and political causes, no
industry or investment connection to Microsoft or its competitors.
I'll give you my opinion in the short version. Settle up and leave
Microsoft alone already.
Very truly yours,
Paul Pomerantz
MTC-00010978
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:58pm
Subject: Proposed settlement(s) with Microsoft
In the olden days of personal computers, 10-15 years ago when
people were getting interested in this new medium, there were more
than a few companies making computers with both different components
and different operating systems. And there were lots of companies
making software programs to work with the various systems.
Thanks to the competitive atmosphere that prevailed at the time
each had to not only keep up with the others but stay a jump or two
ahead of them. It was a kind of leap-frog thing that benefited users
and at the same time kept the computer industry adjusting, improving
and advancing in every way.
In those days we had a lot of products, hardware and software,
to choose from--to fit our personal preferences.
How things have changed! Microsoft's Windows not only dominates
the field now, but Microsoft has been adjudged not only a monopoly,
but designs it's system in such a way as to make it difficult, and
sometimes impossible, for other company products to work in
conjunction with Windows.
That's an unfortunate and giant step from the competitive
atmosphere that put a
[[Page 25387]]
personal computer on nearly every desk--and
even two or more in many homes--to a predatory monopolistic enclave!
No wonder the current class-action suit that holds Microsoft
guilty of overcharging for Windows may not be settled by allowing
Microsoft to further permeate the field by furnishing Microsoft-only
programs in reconditioned computers to be given to under funded
schools. (Some complain that Microsoft's offer would cost only about
$1 million of their reported $36 billion of cash and short term
securities.)
Wouldn't it be nice if the courts, U.S. or EU, could do whatever
is needed to get us back to the old handsomely progressive
competitive days by requiring Microsoft to loosen up and cooperate
with other computer companies so we could again enjoy constant
improvements, and choices, in software and hardware--at competitive
prices?
At least we can dream, can't we?
Howard S Rodgers
[email protected]>
Tel & Fax 928 445-7781
PO Box 10487
Prescott AZ 86304-0487
MTC-00010979
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let Microsoft continue to operate unfettered by
government interference. They produce products that are of great use
to businesses and consumers alike. Settle the case as soon as
possible.
The suit never should have happened in the first place. Don't
compound the problem by drawing out the settlement.
MTC-00010980
From: Sharon Chiu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am writing this email to express my strong feeling about the
Microsoft settlement case. It is very clear and obvious that
Microsoft has violated the antitrust laws with the intention of
wiping out her competitors at all cost.
That said, I feel that any government settlement with Microsoft,
in order to protect the technology community and the larger public,
must cover the following issues:
1. Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly immediately,
2. Deny to Microsoft the profits of its past violations (give it
to our government for budget or community for profit sharing), and
3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
Thank you very much for taking my comments into consideration
when making the settlement.
Best regards,
Sharon Chiu
Chief Financial Officer
Elibrium Inc.
www.Elibrium.com
Direct (W) 650-212-9388
Fax: 650-345-8562
MTC-00010981
From: Georg Bolch
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Georg Bolch
P O Box 528
Suquamish, WA 98392-0528
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Georg G Bolch
MTC-00010982
From: Benoni Nowland IV
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Benoni Nowland IV
10398 Ridge Road
Nevada City, CA 95959
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice ,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business
of stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick
the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-
tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new
and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Benoni Nowland IV
MTC-00010983
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement of the suit against Microsoft should be settled
and put to bed. To begin with, there should never have been a suit
against the company that has really put the USA as a leader in the
computer arena. Thus no more litigation.
Lets go forward, not waste time and money against a company that
has provided so much.
Joe Hart [email protected]
Naples, FL
MTC-00010984
From: John Berthoud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attached please find our letter commenting on the settlement of
the Microsoft case.
We are also sending it via fax.
Thank you for considering our input.
John Berthoud
President
National Taxpayers Union &
National Taxpayers Union Foundation [email protected]
www.ntu.org
Phone--703-683-5700
Fax--703-683-5722
January14,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX # 202-307-1454
Dear Ms. Hesse:
On behalf of the 335,000 members of the National Taxpayers
Union, I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in
United States v. Microsoft.
As you may know, it is our position that this case was brought
to protect Microsoft's competitors - not competition itself.
Furthermore, we remain concerned that many state Attorneys General
continue to push the suit forward for ideological and political
reasons.
We are, however, pleased to see that after four years the
parties are prepared to settle a case that has produced many
unfortunate results. Taxpayers have been forced to underwrite the
litigation to the tune of at least $35 million. Microsoft was
compelled to shift considerable resources into the legal battle that
would normally have been spent on product innovation, and also faces
a tangle of private antitrust-spawned litigation.
[[Page 25388]]
And as NTU
Foundation research has shown, the government litigation has imposed
billions of dollars worth of stock market losses on millions of
American investors.
The Proposed Final Judgment contains many references to
``consumers.'' Indeed, the antitrust authorities have insisted from
the beginning that this case was about consumer welfare. Yet the
original purpose of the suit against Microsoft was to enjoin the
company from including Internet Explorer as part of its Windows
operating system, which the plaintiffs deemed to be a grievous
threat to Netscape (later purchased for $5 billion by Internet giant
AOL, a Microsoft competitor). In a suit supposedly brought on behalf
of consumers, we remain puzzled as to how it would have helped
consumers to make them pay for an Internet browser they could
otherwise get for free. Consumers place a high value on the ability
to use a standardized, integrated operating system. In fact, public
opinion polls taken throughout the Microsoft antitrust trial showed
that sizable majorities of the public viewed Microsoft and its
products favorably.
The Proposed Final Judgment's emphasis on ``network effects'' as
a ``barrier to entry'' for Microsoft competitors in many senses
disregards consumers' demonstrated preference for standardized
software. The government's suit was premised upon a fundamental
misunderstanding of the way in which consumer markets operate:
Microsoft did not build up its large market share through anti-
competitive practices; instead Microsoft became the nation's largest
software company by providing consumers with the products they
prefer. Several state Attorneys General are refusing to sign the
Proposed Final Judgment on the grounds that it is not strong enough.
However, the agreement appears to provide the plaintiffs with
exactly the type of relief they were seeking.
The settlement gives each of the settling states and the
Department of Justice the power to enforce the decree and to seek a
broad range of remedies in the event of a violation. An independent
Technical Committee that reports to the plaintiffs would be afforded
full access to Microsoft's facilities, employees, records, and even
the Windows source code. And the settlement binds Microsoft to
provide information to its competitors so that their programs will
be Windows-compatible. Based on the strength of these remedies and
the fast pace at which the software industry is evolving, we believe
that the five-year duration of the decree--as opposed to the
customary ten-year period--is appropriate.
The antitrust laws do not exist to preserve specific products or
specific competitors. They exist to preserve competition itself, and
we believe that consumers freely chose Microsoft's products-- which
provided a standardized, integrated operating system that
revolutionized personal computer use. The results included a huge
jump in desktop computer usage, much-improved efficiency, and robust
growth in the software industry throughout the 1990s. Thus, we
believe that this case constituted unnecessary, and harmful,
government interference with the private sector. Rather than a
victory for competition, we believe the Microsoft case represents a
defeat for taxpayers, consumers, and investors.
With the economy in recession, Americans simply cannot keep
paying the high price of governmental attempts to dictate winners
and losers in the marketplace. We welcome settlement of this
regrettable case.
Sincerely,
John Berthoud President
MTC-00010985
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge:
I trust that you will do the right thing in this case. Clearly,
allowing Microsoft to abuse its monopoly going forward will hurt our
software industry, our economy and eventually, our nation's overall
standing in the world.
Thank you.
Dawn Scardina
Sunnyvale, CA
MTC-00010986
From: Joel Schermerhorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I, as a concerned citizen of the US, want the government to end
Clinton-Era, Anti-Trust Law Abuse of this Microsoft case. Let's get
this case over with and get on with life!!! Please seriously
consider this email by a concerned citizen. Thank you sincerely,
Joel Schermerhorn.
Joel Schermerhorn
74 Huff Road
Delhi, NY 13753
Have a great day and a blessed forever!
Sincerely,
Joel Schermerhorn
MTC-00010987
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe the lawsuit by the states should be settled. Microsoft
is a great company and should be allowed to do what it does best--
innovate. The DOJ settlement was fair and reasonable. There is no
basis for the separate states to not settle along the same lines
that DOJ did.
Jay Sondhi
MTC-00010988
From: RJEckhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
202 Kin.q Avenue
Westmont, New Jersey 08108
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I implore you and your department to please end this ongoing
litigation against Microsoft and to finalize this settlement. This
court-negotiated settlement meets the public interest and deserves
to go forward.
The provisions and terms of this settlement agreement create a
system of accountability and work to foster competition in the
technology industry. Microsoft, by the settlement, is required to
share its intellectual property with a competitor, if that
competitor, by applying the terms of the settlement, infringes on
Microsoft's intellectual property. In order to maintain
accountability and compliance, Microsoft has also agreed to submit
to a technical oversight committee that will review their business
practices. Clearly this settlement is more than a slap on
Microsoft's corporate wrists.
This process has gone on long enough and should end. Please let
us implement this settlement, agree with the public interest and not
waste anymore time or money.
Sincerely,
Richard Eckhardt
MTC-00010989
From: Jen Lucha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:22pm
Subject: [Fwd: Antitrust Settlement of Microsoft]
Dear DOJ:
I am outraged by the settlement you have negotiated for
Microsoft. It seem to have been written by Microsoft and it not in
the best interest of American citizens. You are letting Microsoft go
unpunished for its business practices.
What kind of message at you sending?
It is ok for criminals to go unpunished. I was wondering how I
am going to explain this to my children. That we had a chance to
right a wrong in the computer industry and make it move forward, but
chose instead to do nothing! You are holding the computer industry
hostage. And you will be responsible for the holding back of years
of progression.
I would like you to disapprove of this settlement. And punish
Microsoft the way it deserves.
Thanks,
Jennifer Lucha
(909) 485-7426
[email protected]
MTC-00010990
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I hope that the suit against Microsoft will be settled in favor
of Microsoft and the American people without creating the mess that
was created when AT&T was broken up. The Justice Department should
turn its attention to Enron.
Lee Williams
MTC-00010991
From: Pawan Bali
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom It may Concern!
The Government of United States of America should leave
Microsoft alone because:
[[Page 25389]]
1. No other Company or Corporation (including, of course, the
Government) than Microsoft has contributed more to the economic,
social and global development of not only the United States of
America but also the Entire Universe.
2. It is becoming very obvious recently that Elected Officials
of the Govt. serve the interest of a very few influential and rich
individuals only who .. . This would provide the Government the
first opportunity to serve the general public whose day to day
living conditions depends on good economic situation at home.
Thanks.
Pawan Kumar Bali
[email protected]
MTC-00010992
From: Claude Cavanaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:31pm
Subject: The Microsoft Case
Please consider what the world would be like if there were only
one automobile manufacturer that owned all the steel mills, one oil
company that owned all the refineries and one grocery store that
owned all the farms.
The same applies to one PC applications developer that owns the
operating system. Microsoft broke the law and should be punished for
it. It is a good solution to split the company into two entities.
One for applications and one for operating systems. Not unlike
United Technologies. You didn't let them build the engines and the
airplanes to use in their airline company. Microsoft should not be
able to build the applications that use their operating system.
This will not cause Microsoft any real grief. It will only make
them compete in the marketplace like everyone else.
Sincerely,
Name withheld out of fear of reprisal from Microsoft.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00010993
From: Erin Diehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
847 North Van Dorn Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22304
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing today to voice my opinion regarding the settlement
in the Microsoft Anti Trust case. This settlement has been long
awaited and I see no reason too prolong its implementation. As part
of the lawsuit's terms, a mediator was assigned by the courts to
assist in the negotiation efforts. Microsoft certainly did not get
off easy, as some may think. They are giving way more than is
necessary, given that they are a private company and should be able
to keep their research and technology to themselves.
However, they are handing over coding and interface information
to their competitors who weren't smart enough to come up with their
own. They are also making it easier for Windows users to install and
use non-Windows products. Given the fact that most computers come
with Windows because they are the most user-friendly, I don't see
why this was an issue in the first place. I decided to install non-
Microsoft products on my computer and had no problems in doing so.
But as part of the settlement, Microsoft is going above and beyond
their responsibility and nearly promoting other companies' products.
I am a graduate student and throughout my years of schooling and
research, I've depended on Microsoft for everything having to do
with computers. Doing papers and research would not have been as
easy had I not been able to use my computer. I remember how
difficult word-processing programs were before Microsoft's Word
program. Since then young computer users have easily picked up the
ins and outs of software and computers. Microsoft has changed the
way people learn. I would be hard pressed to learn other products
such as UNIX or Oracle. Although anyone is free to use them, these
products are inferior to Microsoft's products in that they are much
more difficult and not very user-friendly. However, the terms of the
settlement now call for these products to be made more easily
available.
The terms of this settlement go above and beyond what is
necessary. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Microsoft has
served the public interest for years; this settlement certainly does
the same.
Please maintain this settlement and ensure this lawsuit is laid
to rest.
Sincerely,
Erin Diehl
MTC-00010994
From: James R. Ryder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
While I fully appreciate the influence the Bush Administration
may have had on expediting a settlement in the matter of Microsoft
vs. DOJ it is my contention that this charge was baseless from the
beginning. I am truly ashamed as a Conservative that this was ever
taken on in the first place!
Good luck to Microsoft and I hope the DOJ spends more time going
after AOL where the same amount of public control is being had.
James T. Ryder
MTC-00010995
From: Lisa Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I for one am tired of knowing my tax money is being used for
this witchhunt and want this case to settled immediately. Don't
waste our tax dollars on companies that want a fair shake in our
capitolistics society.
If a company cannot make it on its own well, that is healthy
competition ! Sincerest regards
Lisa Moore
MTC-00010996
From: Mary Spero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Aloha Judge!
PLEASE stop persecuting Microsoft! Hey, we all had a chance to
decide what we wanted. I chose Microsoft and my daughter chose
Apple. NOBODY forced either of us to make our decisions. I *DON'T*
use MS's browser; I like Netscape better. What I really don't like
is the recession brought on by *MY* government's persecution of the
people who gave us the superb economy of the 90's. Soooo, PLEASE,
let Microsoft do what they do best... provide the world with some
very good products--and some junk ones, too! g> Me ke aloha, Mary in
Honolulu
[email protected]
MTC-00010997
From: John Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Yes I am in agreement with the Microsoft settlement and I would
like it to
go forward.
Sincerely
Catherine Langone-Bailey
MTC-00010998
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
It has come to my attention that a settlement has been reached
in the Justice Department's three-year case against Microsoft
regarding alleged antitrust violations. I am glad that this case
will be finally ending because of this settlement. I think Microsoft
did not do anything wrong to have litigation brought against it.
However, I believe that the settlement that has been reached is
fair and reasonable to all of the parties involved. Others will tell
you that Microsoft is getting off easy in this case. I strongly
disagree with that statement, because the company will be making a
number of changes to their products, and business practices. For
example, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes
with Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
Also, I would like to remind you that Microsoft has agreed to
document and disclose for use by it's competitors various interfaces
that are internal to Windows operating system products. I ask that
the Justice Department accept the settlement, and no further action
be taken against Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Monika Puri
8514 Magnolia Drive
Lanham, MD 20706
MTC-00010999
From: Cathy Chavasse
[[Page 25390]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Rollover or DOJ WimpOut
Oh please! For God's sake. We--American public/tax payer in the
person of the DOJ--won! Why do we have to feel so guilty that we
total capitulate in favor of the one that is really guilty? We are
not guilty. We are not guilty. Keep saying that if it helps.
Microsoft is guilty. Microsoft is guilty.
Microsoft is a convicted criminal. Treat if like one. If I get a
speeding ticket, do I get to negotiate my punishment after I am
found guilty? And promise to speed on all the unpaved back roads
too. If I rob a bank (more like what MS has done), do I get to keep
the money, and buy a couple of real banks to further my crime. They
have been doing the same crime for more than ten years. I only speed
once in a while. And I have not robbed a bank yet. But if I get the
same treatment that MS is getting, I may just speed all the time and
get into robbing banks.
How can you guys do this? At least make them pay the (tax
payers') court cost!
The tax payers should not have to pay again. And again. And
again.
You guys should be ashamed.
Senior Engineer
Dataway West
Christopher B Chavasse
MTC-00011000
From: Harold H. Burbank, II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:51pm
Subject: Settlement
I object to the settlement terms without reading them as I have
long believed the lawsuit is simply a witch hunt against Microsoft,
which, like it or not, made it on the same rules of American
capitalism available to its competitors. My boss, CT attorney
general Richard Blumenthal, is a clear example of how far some
politicians will go try to get publicity for themselves at
Microsoft's expense. He has wasted millions of state dollars trying
to set American commerce policy which should be set in Congress, not
the courts. The fact is the state AGs who persist in suing cannot
succeed in Congress. The whole case should have been thrown out.
Implicitly, the settlement in unfair and unlawful toward Microsoft,
which in no clear way violated the law from the start.
Attorney Harold H. Burbnak, II
Office of CT Attorney General
MTC-00011001
From: Peter R. Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft should not be allowed to continue its monopolistic
anticompetitive practices. Microsoft's ill-gotten domination of PC
operating systems (Windows) through monopolistic practices and sheer
marketing have done a great disservice to the average consumer, who
is not technologically savvy enough to understand what is going on.
Microsoft can get away with virtually telling the consumer what they
want or need by virtue of this monopoly, and can likewise stifle
competition by not fully disclosing the workings and interfaces to
Windows. For the short and long-term good of the computer user as
well as the industry, Microsoft must be prevented from continuing
these practices.
Peter R. Newell
Affordable Technical Solutions
Glenfield NY
MTC-00011002
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I wish to add my voice to the many Americans who believe that
the settlement agreed to by Microsoft is in the best interests of
the economy and the thousands of children whose education in the
area of informational technology and computer skills will be
wonderfully enhanced. Despite the obvious public benefits of this
settlement, nine different states refuse to settle, hoping to get
more cash to pour into the black sink hole of state coffers and into
the pockets of the lawyers urging them on. Their cavalier approach
ignores the long term benefits of the innovations of Microsoft and
their positive impact on all Americans. Enough of the Microsoft
bashing. Let's get on with it and, in doing so, encourage Microsoft
to continue to lead the way to even more invention and innovation in
this exciting realm.
J. L. Gibbs, MD
Canton, Ill
MTC-00011003
From: RR-
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Microsoft has tried in Good Faith to settle this litigation.
Please do not allow politics to stop this settlement. The offer that
was agreed to by the Department of Justice as well as the nine
states is more then fair.
The tech world as well as the consumers need this to be settled.
Ray Reid
3355 Deer lake Court SE
Salem, Oregon 97301
MTC-00011004
From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/14/02 9:56pm
Settle the Microsoft case now On the terms agreed to with DOJ.
To prolong this ridiculous lawsuit with the maveric states is
counter productive to the economy and increased productivity. It
only caters to the states who are fronting for weak companies in
their respective states. SETTLE NOW!
Wm. Necoechea
MTC-00011005
From: cape--pss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We support Microsoft and their settlement offer. It is in the
best interest of all parties to settle this and move on from here.
In the spirit of having the ``freedom to innovate'', we suggest the
parties settle this case now.
Jerry & Nancy Cape
3109 Woodland Fern Drive
Parrish, FL 34219
MTC-00011006
From: Kim Rubin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Proposed Settlement
As a company CEO, I am against the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. I am an avid capitalist who trusts the free market.
However, Microsoft's effectively monopoly has permitted them to
engage in a long pattern of anti-competitive behavior that has
deprived companies and individuals of reasonable choices.
Microsoft has some great products. I consider them the most
brilliant marketing organization of last decade. As a company, we
borrow from their marketing strategy.
The Settlement that would benefit everyone, including Microsoft
shareholders, would break the company into three companies:
operating systems, application software, and internet operations.
There would be no overlapping boards, management or infrastructure.
All dealings between the three new companies would on a equal
footing with other companies, and subject to court review.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Kim Rubin, CEO, findtheDOT
510 302-3463 x207 office
650 799-0059 cell [email protected]
MTC-00011007
From: Leonard and Agnes Tillerson
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leonard and Agnes Tillerson
244 Osprey Circle
St Marys, Ga 31558-4101
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
[[Page 25391]]
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Agnes and Leonard Tillerson
MTC-00011008
From: Ron Carns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think it is time to get off Microsoft's case.
I have been using Microsoft since the late '80s and have not
found other to take its place. I do not view Microsoft as a
monopoly. I have used other operating systems and have found
Microsoft has the most sound systems for users and is very user
conscious.
When installing new versions of Microsoft I have options for
different internet access and can set my system to run how I want
it. I can easily get updates and software upgrades to keep my
computer safe from hackers and viruses. Other companies have the
equal right to try to be better than Microsoft but not by degrading
one of the backbone companies on our on soil.
It is time to redefine what a monopoly is and let our country
get back to business at hand. Turn Microsoft loose and spend the
governments funds on more important things like ``NATIONAL
SECURITY''!!
Thanks you............
Ronald A. Carns
46596 Twp Rd 479
Coshocton, OH 43812-9573
740-829-2061
[email protected]
MTC-00011009
From: Bill Belvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dept. of Justice,
Please confirm the settlement already reached between Microsoft
and the DOJ , and do it quickly. The remaining 9 plaintiff states
are acting on the basis of their AG's, in my opinion, and not on
what is good for the citizens of their states...which is an end to
the uncertainty, and the release of creative software energy. This
whole suit has been about protecting vindictive competitors who seek
the courts intervention, rather than compete. Great injury has been
done to Microsoft, and me the consumer by the whole process. So put
it behind us, ratify the settlement, and let the market participants
compete!
Thank you,
William S. Belvin
MTC-00011010
From: George Alexekos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly;
Like most people, I was too busy with everything from the
approaching holidays to the war (not to mention making the quarter)
to pay much attention to the PFJ. But over the past couple weeks
I've had a chance to study this proposed Agreement a bit more--and
what I've found has really shocked me.
For some reason the Justice Department seems to have ignored ALL
the court findings in the case (over the past three years every
single court involved found that MS had aggressively abused its
monopoly position for its own competitive advantage--which is no
great news to anyone in the software industry). But in fact the DoJ
has basically agreed not only to NOT penalize MS for its long-
standing antitrust abuses, but to actually grant MS a de-facto
monopoly in our industry going forward. I don't have to tell you
what a disaster this would be for all of us that are NOT Microsoft
minions (and especially for those of us working with or dependant
upon Java, Linux, AOL, the Mac...or indeed ANY non-Microsoft code
base or service). The good news is that you can still do something
about this impending disaster before it's too late.
I tend to get pretty involved when I believe deeply in
something. And I sincerely believe that the PFJ is a potential
disaster for all non-Microsoft players, big and small, in our
industry, and potentially for consumers and for our nation as well.
As much as I love the current Administration, our Justice Department
fumbled the ball on this one.
Thank you for helping to correct the very, very serious flaws in
the PFJ.
Sincerely;
George Alexakos
Boston, Mass
MTC-00011011
From: Dawn Scardina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:15pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement.....
Dear Judge Kollar Kotell,
I just wanted to write you a short note to let you know how
disappointed I am in how the justice department is handling the
Microsoft case. I understand that the Tunney Act allows you to
review the opinions of the public concerning this case.
Microsoft should not only be fined for their anti-
competitiveness, but steps should be taken to ensure that no other
company is overlooked (and for so long) for exercising their
monopolistic power to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
I would like to say that while I do like Microsoft's products
and services, I feel that competition is always good for consumers.
Thank you for your time in regards to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dawn Scardina
MTC-00011013
From: Bruce Hagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
Gentlemen:
So Bill is rich. Very, very rich. So what!! What he has done for
the computer industry and all of us that use computers cannot be
comprehended by many. Is he perfect? No, but only the best we have.
Isn't that what the US is (use to be) all about? Work hard, produce,
and you get the rewards or have I missed what has happened to this
country during the last 30 years. Let's get on with life and let MS
get back to what they do best.
Bruce Hagen
MTC-00011014
From: Shahid Chaudhry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
My name is Shahid and i want to comment on this matter in such a
way that Microsoft Settlement should be made by now and it should
not be furthere litigated. I think this thing is in the favor of all
people.
Shahid
MTC-00011015
From: Steve Weik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:41pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT IS A BAD DEAL...
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly
I recently saw this Op-Ed in the San Jose Mercury News--and I
think it conveys very clearly some of the main problems with the
DoJ's proposed settlement with Microsoft. I understand that you are
now charged with reviewing the PFJ--and as a long-time software
industry veteran (and someone who is not strongly affilitated with
any of the ``camps'' on this issue) I'd ask you to make SURE that
the final agreement allows for a free and fair software industry--
and one that will produce secure code (something that Microsoft
doesn't seem to know how to do).
Thanks.
Steve Weik
LA, CA
SECURITY IN DIVERSITY
By Greg Papadopoulos
The antitrust case against Microsoft isn't just about
competition; it's about security.
Over and above the usual economic risks presented by an
unchecked monopolist--rising prices and monochromatic innovation--
the country's (and the world's) computer infrastructure will be
increasingly vulnerable to attack if a single software system
predominates. Imagine what would happen if producers of, say, corn
were able to use their market power to eliminate wheat, rice, and
oats. Suppose that 90 percent of the world's grain supply came from
a single variety of corn. We would be faced with the unacceptable
risk that some blight, some single disease, might wipe out an
enormous portion of our food supply. So far, the possibility of
bioengineered attacks on food crops has been largely theoretical,
but engineered attacks on the Internet's software infrastructure
happen all the time. We've seen what can happen when hackers exploit
flaws in operating systems and Internet browsers. Last year's ``I
Love You'' virus infected several million computers and caused as
much as $10 billion in damages, while this year's ``Code Red'' and
``Nimda'' worms caused another $4 billion. And the number of
incidents is on the rise.
Having only one kind of operating system or one kind of browser
would make it much, much easier for saboteurs to bring the entire
Internet to its knees.
In a perfect world, software would be free of flaws for
attackers to exploit. Quality control does reduce the number and
severity of such flaws, but the current state of the art is that
nearly every software release contains
[[Page 25392]]
a few. Diversity is currently
the best defense against attacks on the flaws of any particular
software component. For increased reliability, a standard technical
strategy at all levels of computer system design is redundancy and
diversity. Fortunately, the connectivity of the Internet routing
infrastructure is now highly redundant and built out of routers from
multiple sources. It's the next layer or two--operating systems and
software applications for desktop computers and other Web-enabled
devices--that need attention. For very high reliability software, a
well-studied solution is to have multiple independent teams each
create their own redundant versions. This way a single design error
or bug doesn't take down the whole system-- the other software
versions take over instead.
I believe that it's crucial to the health of the Internet--and
to the worldwide economic system that has come to rely on it--that
the infrastructure include measurable diversity. By that I mean we
should have, at a minimum, three operating systems and three
browsers, independently designed and constructed. That way, if a
software virus were to incapacitate the most widely used version of
either, we could have enough residual capacity to continue at least
partial operations and recover from the damage.
For a single entity to control 80 to 90 percent of the market
for PC operating systems, Internet browsers, e-mail readers, and
office productivity software (which can also spread viruses) is
clearly a significant security risk. To then allow that monopoly to
actively attempt to drive out its remaining competition would hardly
be in the public interest.
It's now up to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to decide whether
the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice is a just solution. But from where I sit, it contains too
many loopholes to measureably effect Microsoft's behavior, much less
bring about the kind of diversity that would enhance our security.
MTC-00011016
From: GERALD THOMPSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:44pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
PLEASE SETTLE WITH MICROSOFT. 90% OF THE WORLD LOVES MICRO
SOFTWARE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT. I DON'T USE THER
INTERNET EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ON MY DESK TOP. I GOT A LOCAL CO. & I
HAD NO TROUBLE DOING THAT. THANK YOU
MTC-00011017
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:47pm
Subject: (no subject)
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft
(PFJ).
First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards.
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to
overturn this settlement.
Sincerely,
Andrew Goldberg
Brighton, Massachusetts
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011018
From: MARSHALL MOORE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT...
Dear Judge:
I am a member of the high tech community here in Virginia--and
am also a lawyer. Although I do not practice antitrust law, I have
had the opportunity to research the PFJ which you are now charged to
review. It appears to me that there are a number of VERY serious
issues with the PFJ, including:
a. No Penalty For Undisputed Illegal Activity. Microsoft is not
penalized for any past misdeeds. In other words, they are being
allowed to retain all the profits gained from their illegal
activities. Every court involved with this case has acknowledged
that Microsoft broke the Anti-trust laws. Through this Agreement,
the Justice Department is sending the message that this sort of
anticompetitive behavior is acceptable. Every large potential
monopolistic company is being told that they can get away with this
sort of illegal behavior without fear of losing any of the gains
made from such conduct. In other words, get away with as much as you
can until the Justice Department brings an action. There is every
incentive for future monopolists to engage in this type of conduct
and no incentive not to.
b. Middleware: As part of the Agreement Microsoft is required to
allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs and
allow them to install icons or links to competing middleware
programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers are not
allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and
delete all the competitor's middleware.
c. Communication Protocols: The Agreement states that Microsoft
must now share information on how its middleware and server software
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute
separate from windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked.
This is a huge loophole, because if Microsoft wants to drive a
competitor out of business, they just attach the specific type of
software the competitor is involved with to their Windows platform.
Once they do that, they do not have to share the coding information
that allows the competitors software to work with Windows, thus
driving the competitor out of business. Once the competitor is out
of business, Microsoft can separate the software from the Windows
package, sell it separately and derive huge margins. In addition,
Microsoft does not have to disclose their information to companies
that in ?their view? do not have a ?viable business?. This loophole
will allow Microsoft to prevent new software start-ups from forming
which, to say the least, is very bad for competition, and therefore,
the consumer.
Judge, I know that you will be looking at these matters closely.
I trust that you will do the right thing for ALL Americans, software
producers and consumers alike, and remedy these very serious
problems in the PFJ.
Thank you for your time.
Marshall Moore, JD
Charlottesville, VA
MTC-00011019
From: George Lien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:56pm
Subject: Good for the government!
Recent decision for NOT allowing Microsoft to give away so-
called free Microsoft software and trainings for schools is one of
the best decisions ever made.
Ask the software gaint to pay in cash. That's right--CASH!
And let the schools decide what to do with the cash.
Regards,
George Lien
MTC-00011020
From: Jack Bond
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack Bond
C25 Scotty Hollow Drive
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering
[[Page 25393]]
superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jack Bond
MTC-00011021
From: Tom Fennell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have sent a previous message quite a while ago but I am
sending another to state my feelings on this lawsuit. I have been
using computers for many years now. I became involved before there
was a company named Microsoft. In those old days, computers were a
real challenge to operate. Then Microsoft came along and changed
things forever. Their development of an operating system which took
all of the confusion out of the normal users hands was a godsend. In
all of the years since the introduction of their first system, I
have never had a really serious problem with their so called
``bundling'' of various other software packages within their
operating systems. I have used Netscape as my browser with no
problems. In no way did the operating system ever interfere with my
choice of browsers. I help many people with their computer systems
as a hobby in my retirement. I never hear any negative comments from
anyone regarding problems with their operating systems (Microsoft
Windows 95, 98, ME). Yes, they experience problems but it is usually
related to their inexperience in operating their systems. Yes, they
do experience conflicts with programs but they can usually be
resolved. All of the resources that have been expended against
Microsoft is a waste of taxpayers money and should be stopped. I
urge you to look at this and find a way to resolve this in a fair
and reasonable manner.
The longer this drags on the more damage our economy will suffer
especially in the present state of the economy of the United States
and also the world economy.
Respectfully,
Tom Fennell
La Quinta, Ca.
MTC-00011022
From: Stephen North
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Judge;
I see two major problems (and many minor ones) in the PFJ as
currently configured.
1. The Three-Man Compliance Team. The Agreement requires a
three-man compliance team to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the
Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, the Justice Department
another, and the third will be chosen by the two people already
appointed. This new team will not be allowed to inform the public of
their work, and cannot impose fines. Their sole remedy for
infractions is informing the Justice Department of the infraction
and then the Justice Department will have to commence litigation to
stop the infraction. The Justice Department does not need a
compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is doing something
wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke screen.
2. Market Share. All other businesses in the U.S. market that
have a ninety percent market share are considered per-se monopolies
and are regulated or have some sort of government oversight (i.e.
utilities, local phone companies, cable companies etc.). This is
done because it is in such a company's best interest (in the
interest of their shareholders) to abuse their position. In other
words, to gain maximum shareholder value, they are almost required
to abuse their position. Why is Microsoft allowed a waiver to this
general rule? Does Microsoft not try to gain optimum share value for
their shareholders?
Certainly these are just two of the issues in a very flawed
agreement. As a member of the consulting services industry for
almost 20 years--my firm depends on a free market for software in
order to support and satisfy our clients. Microsoft has, from my
personal experience, never believed in free markets -and has done
everything they can to extend their defacto monopoly at the expense
of many, many others.
Please make the Dept of Justice do what is right for America--
not just for the current Administration and their fat cats.
Thanks.
Stephen North
Chicago ILL
MTC-00011023
From: Michael Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please find my comments related to the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Kramer Stonewall Capital LLC [email protected]
277 West End Avenue # 5D
New York, NY 10023
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to take advantage of this public comment period and
voice my opinion on the recent events surrounding the Microsoft
antitrust case. First of all, this lawsuit is frivolous and has
become a political game for those wanting media attention. Much time
and money has been wasted on lawsuit, and now that a settlement has
been reached, I think it is ridiculous to spend even more time on
it.
It is very clear that the attorneys general of the dissenting
states are more interested in pursuing a populist political agenda
than in protecting consumers. The interests of consumers will be
best served to put this issue behind us and allow the American
economy to recover from its current recession.
In the past decade, I think that Microsoft has created the
single best consumer product in the market. Given how much time
people and businesses spend using computers, a very small price is
paid for a superior product. I see no indication that there has been
any harm to consumer interest in Microsoft's products or their
practices. Please uphold this settlement and allow Microsoft and our
economy to return to normal.
Like most settlements, this settlement in the Microsoft case has
been reached after much effort, under the supervision of a court-
appointed mediator. The settlement goes above and beyond what was
called for in the problematic issues of the suit. To ensure its
compliance, there has been a Technical Committee created to oversee
any possible dispute resolution.
Sincerely,
Michael Kramer
cc: Representative Jerrold Nadler
MTC-00011024
From: Jeremy Svinkelstin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Attorney General Ashcroft:
The Microsoft case, which has been pursued for a decade by the
federal government, has ostensibly been pursued on behalf of
consumers. However, the very consumers it has sought to protect are
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the
technology market and the entire national economy, which is now
mired in a recession. Furthermore, the American taxpayers have had
to fund this prosecution, diverting government funds from
investigating harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate
monopolies. The proposed settlement encourages product-choice,
promotes product innovation, and provides non- Microsoft related
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.
Therefore, I humbly request that this litigation concerning
Microsoft be stopped, and the proposed settlement accepted.
Commercial success should not be penalized.
Very truly yours,
Jeremy D. Svinkelstin
20 Huntington Street,
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1002,
MTC-00011025
From: Drinkwine, Paul
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Renata B. Hesse,
I am an employee in the technology industry who resides in
Washington State. I strongly encourage breaking up Microsoft. The
business practices Microsoft uses continuously stifle progress in
this industry and promote a culture of homogenous second-rate
technology.
It is a well know fact that the products Microsoft produces are
not the best around
[[Page 25394]]
yet everyone must conform to their technology
due to the monopoly they hold on the industry.
I wish my State had the integrity to join the other states suing
yet understand that the money Microsoft brings into this state is
addictive.
Paul Drinkwine
Avocent--Redmond U.S.A.
Testing and Certification
www.avocent.com
MTC-00011026
From: fred l mckinney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:22pm
Subject: MY COMMENT
FRED MCKINNEY
2903 COUNTRY WAY
DANVILLE, IL. 61832
2174423322
Dear DOJ,
I'm a share holder of MICROSOFT, AOL, SUN MICROSYSTEM,
INTEL,CISCO,ECT.
I have been following this case for years, and feel that SUNW,
AOL has use the DOJ to try to slow down Microsoft. They have use
every tactic to try to hurt the consumer and MSFT. They feel its bad
for MSFT to have a monopoly, BUT ITS OK FOR THEM TO CREATE OR HAVE
ONE TO THEMSELVES.
This bickering between who should own MSFT HAS TO STOP. I feel
the monopoly MSFT has is legal. The consumer and the manufactures
decided which software we wanted the most. If any company was to
come up with a software package better than MICROSOFT WINDOWS, we
would dump them the next day or months ahead. Microsoft has a CHOSEN
MONOPOLY, BECAUSE WE THE CONSUMER WANTED IT THIS WAY. FIFTEEN YEARS
AGO NO SOFTWARE PACKAGE WORK WITH EACH OTHER AND IT WAS A PAIN
SETTING IT UP. MSFT came along and eliminate all of these setup and
non compatible hardware and most of all ``NO STANDARD AMONG
VENDORS''.
These companies I own want the consumer and businesses to be at
their mercy when it come to installation. This create more revenue
for them and also establish the setting as ``YOU HAVE NO WHERE TO
GO'' SO YOU HAVE TO CALL US!!! MSFT HAS CHANGE ALL OF THIS. We have
a company which feels its being chase all the time by their
competition. They brag how they will ``EAT MSFT LUNCH'' , AND
everyone knows MSFT thrives on this competition. It's not about
money , its about WHO'S THE BEST . NOT ALL THE PRODUCTS I USE IS
MICROSOFT. I USE COREL QUATTO PRO 8 , THIS IS EXCEL COMPETITOR.
I USE PRINTSHOP DELUXE, I DON'T EVEN USE MSFT HALLMARK VERSION ,
AND I EVEN HAVE A LICENSE VERSION OF THIS SOFTWARE... IF IT WAS FREE
I STILL WOULDN'T USE IT.
Final:
MSFT is not forcing their software on us, WE DECIDE WHAT WE WANT
TO USE.
Fred Mckinney.
MTC-00011027
From: tina power
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Judge;
Like you, I am a woman professional in a man's world. I have
been in the software industry for 15+ years--and I have again and
again seen Microsoft take unfair advantage of its position in our
industry to crush, kill and destroy potential competitors.
The PFJ doesn't even begin to address the true situation--and
trusting MS to effectively police itself is trusting the proverbial
fox to guard the ever shrinking henhouse.
I was especially angered to see that our Dept of Justice didn't
even pay attention to the guilty verdicts that have been unanimously
rendered in the case.
I work for a medium sized company here in the Boston area. We
have had to dance the MS dance for ever...and we would LOVE to have
a viable competitor to work with. Unfortunately, MS has done
everything they can to tie us (and our software systems) to their
lousy OS...and that is not fair. It's especially not fair to allow
them to capitalize on thier OS monopoly to force really crappy
application software down our throats...but that is exactly what
happens.
Please, please, please--send the PFJ back to Justice and tell
them to put the interests of consumers FIRST--before that of wealthy
campaign contributors.
Thank you very much.
tina power
MTC-00011028
From: Dennis Behrens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department Of Justice,
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Window's operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Dennis Behrens
921 Lewis Blvd
Sioux City, IA 51105-3254
A very happy Microsoft consumer!
MTC-00011029
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Dept. of Justice
Subject: Tunney Period Comments
I'm highly opposed to further burdens on Microsoft as sought by
the remaining States Attorney General. My reasons are these:
1) The responsible Judge insisted on settlement talks which were
then accomplished and agreed to by more than half (I count the
federal gov't as equivalent to multiple states) of the participants.
The remaining 9 are malcontents driven more by special interest
companies (seeking to gain by litigation what they couldn't gain in
the free market) than by fairness. They should be harshly described
as such by DOJ.
2) The whole anti-trust case against Microsoft strikes me as the
government interfering in a rapidly moving technology arena where it
is ill-equipped to render judgment The anti-trust laws are not
modern enough to deal with new technology company competitive
issues, wherein companies rise and fall in a very few years
depending on their decisions and products and where they must be
agile and proficient enough to win consumer confidence.
3) Consumers often make their purchasing decisions in a single
season. The government can't even develop an internal concensus in a
season, much less analyze, bring to trial and administer impartial
judgment.
4) Some consolidation of influence within a single company, in
the case of high tech, is often highly beneficial to the consumer.
Lack of a publicly-endorsed Windows standard would have left
millions of PCs unable to converse, yielding a tower of Babel,
instead of a reliable, innovative, efficient new network of
communication.
5) Although I've followed the case reasonably closely, I have
not yet seen much from Microsoft's detractors concerning how
consumers like me have been hurt. My own feeling is that Microsoft
products continue to grow exponentially in capability, while growing
only very modestly, if at all, in price. I feel Microsoft's economic
impact to me has not been adverse, but on the contrary has been
highly beneficial. DOJ should force dissenting states to provide an
economic-impact-to-consumers (not business competitors) statement as
a basis for any complaint. This statement should be reviewed by
competent economists. I'm skeptical such a statement could be
assembled.
Sincerely,
Mark Sussman
[email protected]
MTC-00011030
From: Grant K Rauscher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:32pm
Subject: bootloader
let alternative OS's live
[[Page 25395]]
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/
thanks
Grant K Rauscher
GeeKieR Enterprises
http://www.geekier.com/
MTC-00011031
From: Charles Dooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT STINKS
Dear Judge:
I recently was forwarded Jim Barksdale's recent comments before
the Senate Judiciary Committee. I thought that some of them were
very powerful arguements against the current Microsoft monopoly. I
especially found compelling the following:
``If the PFJ had been in effect all along, how would it have
affected Netscape? More important, how will it affect future
Netscapes?
Impact on future Netscapes.
As discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous
conclusion is that if the PFJ agreed upon last month by Microsoft
and the Department of Justice had been in existence in 1994,
Netscape would have never been able to obtain the necessary venture
capital financing. In fact, the company would not have come into
being in the first place. The work of Marc Andreesen's team at
the University of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would
likely have remained an academic exercise. An innovative,
independent browser company simply could not survive under the PFJ.
And such would be the effect on any company developing in the future
technologies as innovative as the browser was in the mid 1990s.
That leaves the question of whether Microsoft itself would have
developed browser technology necessary for Internet navigation. My
belief is that Microsoft would not have developed that technology.
It is abundantly clear that Microsoft viewed the browser and the
Internet itself as the principal threat to their core business of
selling operating systems and applications for desktop computers.
This PFJ allows Microsoft to employ the full fury of its
multiple monopolies against anyone who would develop a browser or
any other technology that might have the potential to challenge any
aspects of Microsoft's business. I have reviewed the PFJ, and my
impression continues to be that it is a document whose principal
purpose is to protect Microsoft from competition, and not to open up
the market to competition with Microsoft. I note, again with
pleasure, that the remedy proposal by the state Attorneys General
who remain as plaintiffs would significantly open the market up to
competition.
If the PFJ provisions are allowed to go into effect, it is
unrealistic to think that anybody would ever secure venture capital
financing to compete against Microsoft. This would be a tragedy for
our nation. It makes a mockery of the notion that the PFJ is
"good for the economy." If the PFJ goes into effect, it
will subject an entire industry to dominance by an unconstrained
monopolist, thus snuffing out competition, consumer choice and
innovation in perhaps our nation's most important industry.
And worse, it will allow them to extend their dominance to more
traditional businesses such as financial services, entertainment,
telecommunications, and perhaps many others.
Four years ago I appeared before the committee and was able to
demonstrate, with the help of the audience, that Microsoft
undoubtedly had a monopoly. Now it has been proven in the courts
that Microsoft not only has a monopoly, but they have illegally
maintained that monopoly through a series of abusive and predatory
actions. I submit to the committee that Microsoft is infinitely
stronger in each of their core businesses than they were four years
ago, despite the fact that their principal arguments have been
repudiated 8-0 by the federal courts.''
Judge, that is absolutely what my experience as a software
programmer tells me. I am not an expert in antitrust matters--but
what Microsoft is doing is wrong.
Please help correct the deeply flawed document that our Justice
Dept produced.
Thank you.
MTC-00011032
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Yes, for Microsoft and a Big No to You the government that
continues to harass a very important and wonderfully worthwhile
Company. While you folks wonk away doing God knows what, Microsoft
actually does help real people in real time. Get off it. Now.
Loraine Grover
MTC-00011033
From: John Stage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT IS A PREDATOR
Dear Judge:
I am a former Microsoft executive--and please excuse me but I'm
not going to give you my full name in this e-mail for fear of
reprisal.
Net-net: there is no question that MS explicitly targets
competitors and uses every dirty trick in the book (and more) to put
them out of business. I've seen it--more than once.
I have no idea why the DoJ totally rolled over on this
one...looks like they just took a dive. Maybe MS is giving tothe GOP
big time--I don't know. But I do know that the PFJ is a very bad
deal for everyone who's not a MS millionaire--and even many of us
that used to work there are not proud of what we did.
I'd ask you to make sure that Microsoft is held accountable to
the same laws as everyone else. No one else will.
John
Seattle, WA.
MTC-00011034
From: Joseph Gadoury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Joseph Gadoury
17 Mason Rd.
Dudley MA 01571
508-943-2516
[email protected]
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to express my satisfaction that the Department of
Justice has finally decided to settle the anti-trust litigation
against Microsoft. While I believe that the original case against
Microsoft was weak, unsubstantiated, and not necessary, this
settlement seems to satisfy the public and the government's
interest.
The terms of the settlement keep Microsoft accountable, foster
innovation and increase competition.
According to the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to submit its
technology and business practices to a three-person, government-
appointed, technical oversight committee. This committee will be
responsible for ensuring Microsoft's compliance with the agreement,
and resolving disputes. Microsoft has also agreed to change its
licensing practices to ensure that the maximum amount of technology
is available to the industry.
This settlement goes beyond the government's original complaints
and ensures that the company will be a viable entity in the future.
I am sure you'll agree that it is time to turn our national
resources to more fruitful and productive ends.
I hope that this is the last step in this drawn out process and
that the government ceases all further federal action.
Thank you for your careful consideration,
Joseph Gadoury
[email protected]
MTC-00011035
From: Claude David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I for one do not consider it unfair for Microsoft to bundle
``goodies'' with their operating system, so long as nobody is
compelled to use them. Their competitors are free to make their own
products as attractive to the consumer as possible. But they don't
seem to be prepared to give anything away ``for free'', yet they
have the nerve to ask the federal government to use its resources to
dismantle a company that this country should be so very proud of.
There are matters of greater moment that the department of
justice and this government should be devoting their resources to.
Let us not shoot ourselves in the foot for the sake of a few greedy
CEOs and jealous States.
MTC-00011036
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement 100%. This case has dragged on far too
long. Too much of the taxpaper s money has been spent that could
have spent on other issues. This has been a witchhunt against
Microsoft for the
[[Page 25396]]
beginning. Approve the settlement and let s move
this Great Nation forward.
God Bless You and God Bless America.
MTC-00011037
From: Mike Moses
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Moses
323 N Narberth ave
Narberth, PA 19072
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mike Moses
MTC-00011038
From: Michael Giesler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Giesler
11111 109th Pl NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Michael Giesler
MTC-00011039
From: Chad Myers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chad Myers
6437 Clay Allison Pass
Austin, TX 78749
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Chad Myers
MTC-00011040
From: Elias Gelat
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elias Gelat
7004 Live Oak Dr
North Richland Hills, tx 76180
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
E.A. Gelat
MTC-00011041
From: Steve Sheldon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Sheldon
15233 Greenhaven Way
Burnsville, MN 55306
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
[[Page 25397]]
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Steve Sheldon
MTC-00011042
From: Adam Bockhorst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:06am
Subject: Decision shows awareness of school budgetary realities
Judge Motz' decision to scuttle this ill-conceived settlement
was appropriate. He clearly recognized that organizations making
procurement decisions quite often follow a path of least resistance.
Allowing Microsoft to seed thousands of school districts with free
equipment and products likely would have made the adoption of its
products a fait accomplit, at least in some districts. A Federal
district court would have been complicit in expanding the very
monopoly recognized by the DoJ--a nasty example of the goverment's
left hand not knowing the activities of its right.
Adam Bockhorst
Computer Assistant, Kirkwood School District
St. Louis, Missouri
MTC-00011043
From: Jeffrey Jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:44am
Subject: Objection to Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am filing my personal objection to the proposed final judgment
on the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has found Microsoft
guilty of violating all rules of proper business ethics and
practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the
Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court
findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft
to continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in
my opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also
to the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement.
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the
proposed settlement:
The PFJ does not effectively break up Microsoft, but in fact
allows Microsoft to leverage its current market position, or should
I say, Monopoly to expand its business into several other technology
markets.
Under the general rule, most monopolies in the past, such as
AT&T and Standard Oil, are either broken up or carefully regulated.
However, Microsoft is given a pardon or a waiver to this general
rule of thumb altogether. Also, Simple slaps on the wrist or severe
reprimands by the Department of Justice will not radically alter
Microsofts existing operation methodologies. As history has proven
over and over again, Microsoft will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly
position at the expense of others. Unless something extraordinary is
done such as breaking up Microsofts business into several parts or
meting out severe punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue
to implement illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that
the Proposed Final Judgment does not solve the Microsoft issue.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey Jimenez
3061 La Selva Ave Apt C203
San Mateo, CA 94401
MTC-00011044
From: Jeff Daniell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Daniell
PO Box 1444
Lampasas, TX 76550
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jeff Daniell
MTC-00011045
From: Jonathan Hughey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jonathan Hughey
4240 Cuesta Dr.
Irving, TX 75038
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jonathan N Hughey
MTC-00011046
From: Steve Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Moore
1306 Island View Ct.
Nashville, TN 37214
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Steve Moore
[[Page 25398]]
MTC-00011047
From: John Thibodeau
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Thibodeau
366 S W Main St
Douglas, Ma 01516-2505
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John Thibodeau
MTC-00011048
From: Jesse Cook
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jesse Cook
5784 Ohara Ct
Boise, ID 83703
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jesse Cook
MTC-00011049
From: Chance Cartwright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chance Cartwright
12 Perkins
Lampasas, TX 76550
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Chance Cartwright
MTC-00011050
From: Hao He
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It appears to the rest of the world that justice is only as much
as you can afford it in the USA.
Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly and has used that
monopoly position for its illegal gains. However, Microsoft can get
away with its wrong doings without any effective punishment.
Dr. Hao He
Software Architect
The above statements only reflect my personal views.
MTC-00011051
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft
This is a terrible settlement. I do feel that those in the
Justice Department that made it were well meaning, but they simply
do not understand what Microsoft is doing. Most developers will flat
out tell you that Microsoft is an impediment to technological
advancement, they are a monopoly, and have massively abused that
position.
I could go on and on. But let me just make one example, Internet
Explorer.
Microsoft was nonexistent in the development stages of the Web.
But they ended up cloning the good work of others, and then using
their monopoly power to drive those who were the innovators, out of
the picture.
This is what Microsoft does every time. They were a decent and
innovative company, up to the mid 90s. But that changed. Microsoft
no longer creates, it does not innovate. It clones, and uses its
monopoly position to drive those that really do innovate out,
leaving Microsoft with control of the market.
If this is not monopoly abuse, what is? Please tell me. And what
is really frightening, is what Microsoft has planned for the future.
Frank Kalich
Software Engineer
915 Alabama
Lawrence Kansas 66044
785 331-3413
MTC-00011052
From: Jason Carreiro
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Carreiro
376 Hailes Hill Rd.
Swansea, MA 02777
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling
[[Page 25399]]
progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jason Carreiro
MTC-00011053
From: Mayssam Sayyadian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 5:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
hello,
In my opinion, the proposed final judgement:
Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft
was found to have illegally protected.
Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology
community. Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was
found to have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market.
Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging
software into the monopoly Windows operating system.
Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
Regards,
--MS.
MTC-00011054
From: Blanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What is it called when there is centralized control of private
enterprise? What could be better for consumers than to have Big
Brother sitting in Microsoft's office, at Microsoft's expense,
watching every move it makes?
What a great precedent for the future of business and the ``free
market'' in the ``free world''!
What could be better for fostering personal resolve, self-
reliance, and independence of mind, than to have a ``higher'' agency
make the decisions for OEMs, ISP, and OSPs who lack the courage to
reject exclusionary agreements or refuse to do business under those
terms, since otherwise they'll miss out on the large piles of money
they're sure to make in the deal?
What could be better than knowing it is a crime to protect the
integrity of products for which a company is liable, and that it is
required by law to include the competition in the designs? Perhaps
this country should also include a link to communism in its charter,
to provide it equal opportunity to attract our attention and fealty.
If I owned Microsoft, I would say to hell with it--let them use
Linux. After all, there is no obligation to continue producing this
operating system, make improvements or add features to it, or
creating new software applications--and all the while suffering
imposed indignities in order to operate the business.
Nor are consumers obliged to continue using computers and
software: these things are not like air or water or food, and large
numbers of people hardly know how to use them. Those who do have
become used to their benefits, with much thanks to Microsoft, among
others. But it *is* possible to live without them: it was not so
long ago that they did not exist as choices for the average
consumer.
Where is the harm to consumers from products they are free to
desist from using, when they are not required to go to the store and
put their money down to buy any of them, but once having done so are
at liberty to roam the internet and discover all sorts of other free
downloadable software to use in replacement, limited only by their
time and curiosity?
I have experienced no harm from using Microsoft's products, but
this settlement, though less destructive than the previous proposal,
makes me ill.
Blanc Weber
MTC-00011055
From: Frank Bohnem
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 2:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Bohnem
3247 Nowhere St
T.O., CA 91362
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Frank Bohnem
MTC-00011056
From: Mike Larson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Larson
3672 Falcon Way
Eagan, MN 55123
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be
[[Page 25400]]
over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
It's time for this anti-consumer trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will put competition
back in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom, when this
dinosaur is laid to rest.
Then Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and
creating better products for consumers, and stop wasting tons of
time and other valuable resources on litigation. It's their
competitors who can't make it in the marketplace, not the end users
and ordinary people who have to rely on their computers to be
productive, who benefit from this anti-trust, anti-consumer exercise
in poor government.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers, not making it possible for other businesses
to keep making products that people don't want and won't buy. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of successful corporations, people who actually use the
software--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick
the winners and losers. With the chains off the high-tech industry,
more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies, instead of funding to the tune of
hundreds of thousands or more dollars the parties and politicians
who represent these market-loser businesses.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mike Larson
MTC-00011058
From: Charleen Hoffman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 3:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charleen Hoffman
PO Box 80927
Fairbanks, AK 99708-0927
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charleen Hoffman
MTC-00011059
From: Jani Pohjanraito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 4:05am
Subject: Antitrust Division's case against Microsoft
Dear Sirs!
I would simply like to point out that before just competition in
the OS and browser market and developing field is ensured (even in
the simplest possible manner), the consumers will be paying extra
price, and software developers will have 3-4 times the workload per
project.
--For years Microsofts unethical conduct (middleware bundling
with OS, 'harassment' of other browser developers, ..) has been
slowing down the developement of the web, made developers job next
to impossible and has in my experience reduced the quality of
services available to consumers on the internet.
--All of the above at the consumers expense: people have paid
for the operating system, believing that Windows will increase their
productivity and possibilities, when it, in fact, has brought
limitations to the services available to them. This is an outrage!
--Web-service and software developers have been paying the
dearest price: Microsofts business conduct has forced developers to
invest at least 3-4 times more time and energy in bringing their
products to markets--extra work is required because developers have
to 'work their way around' the limitiations and barriers set by
microsoft (brought forward by the OS and the browser and programming
language `discrimination' practiced by Microsoft).
I hope you really consider this case as the case of the future
of efficient internet and desktop computing--it is 'make it or break
it' case. Outcome will be either oudated and limited OS/Service
market, or contemporary and rich OS/Service market. Best Regard,
Jani Pohjanraito Web Developer since 1996
MTC-00011060
From: Peyman Afshani 78179805
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In particular, the proposed final judgement: Fails to reduce the
application barrier to entry that Microsoft was found to have
illegally protected; Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM
technology community; Fails to remedy the illegal injury that
Microsoft was found to have done to Netscape Navigator and the
browser market; Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of
middleware programs including browsers, media players, and instant
messaging software into the monopoly Windows operating system; Is
ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it lacks
an effective enforcement mechanism. In addition, Microsoft has
unlawfuly gained popularity for its products, by forcing everyone
that installs Winxxx to use its applications including Players,
browsers, editors and ... and in this ``proposed final judgement''
there is no solution for this unlawfuly gained popularity. This
popularity consists of forcing end users, which are mostly novice or
beginers to forcibly use Microsoft's product and have no desire to
change the software.
MTC-00011061
From: Angela Watkins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Angela Watkins
Rt1 Box173-6
Durant, Ok 74701
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Angela Watkins
MTC-00011062
From: Matt Frankford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 4:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Matt Frankford
17000 sw 17th cir
ocala, fl 34473
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
[[Page 25401]]
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Frankford
MTC-00011063
From: Charles Salber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 4:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Salber
3833 Edgewood Ave.
Fort Myers, FL 33916-1054
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charles Salber
MTC-00011064
From: Craig Hillemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 5:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU[RESENT IN PLAIN
TEXT] January 13, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft U.S.
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Pursuant to provisions of the Tunney Act, I am writing to
express my opinion on the settlement reached between Microsoft and
the Department of Justice in November of last year. Apparently nine
states are seeking to further prosecute the Microsoft Corporation.
As both a taxpayer and purchaser of personal computer software
products, I do not believe that the antitrust case against Microsoft
should be dragged out any longer.
Please be reminded that the purpose of antitrust laws in the
United States is to protect consumers like me, and not to support
the self-interests of competitors in the marketplace. The parties
that goaded the DOJ and states to file antitrust actions were
Microsoft's competitors, not consumers like me. Microsoft's
competitors are obviously envious of Microsoft's success, but the
reason Microsoft has succeeded is simply that Microsoft has
consistently delivered better and more cost-effective products, and
furthermore fostered a large market and environment inviting
competition. As result, enormously more quality, low-cost hardware
and software is available from both Microsoft and other vendors for
Windows than for any other operating system (e.g, Linux, MacOS,
Solaris, etc.).
Microsoft's Windows product provides excellent functionality for
the price. As a consumer, I want Microsoft to bundle as many apples
as possible in Windows, and I do not appreciate hardware vendors
modifying Windows. My computer-using colleagues feel similarly.
Windows as provided by Microsoft works well on a remarkably wide
range of computer hardware. The apples included in Windows provide
very helpful functionality with dependable stability and user
interface consistency. Their inclusion does not prevent other
vendors from developing products with greater functionality, but
does provide a useful standard for other vendors to try to surpass.
I have read the entire Appellate Decision for this case, and
based on the facts, including my own experience as a computer user,
I do not believe bundling Internet Explorer in Windows was unlawful.
Frankly, I appreciate the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows.
Microsoft's alleged misrepresentation of Java support may have been
questionable, but the context was a struggle with Sun, one of
Microsoft's biggest detractors, for control of the language.
Microsoft has since pulled back support for Java in Internet
Explorer. Anyway, the proposed settlement goes well beyond any
reasonable remedy in view of Microsoft's possible misstep.
Under the circumstances, the agreement made between Microsoft
and the Department of Justice was certainly more than fair. All
parties directly involved (not counting Microsoft's competitors)
seem satisfied with the terms reached. Microsoft has agreed to
license its software and applicable intellectual property rights to
its major competitors. Moreover, Microsoft is planning to format
future versions of Windows so that its competitors will be able to
introduce and endorse non-Microsoft software in Windows. Microsoft
has also agreed to disclose Windows line code to competing computer
software producers. However, I personally will want the full version
of Windows from Microsoft without it being hacked by other vendors.
I do not believe litigation should continue in this case. There is
no need to drag the suit out any longer. You and you office should
back the settlement.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Craig L. Hillemann
1229 Crestover Road
Wilmington, DE 19803
302-479-0432
[email protected]
MTC-00011065
From: Tom Kirkwood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 5:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Kirkwood
4362 Rice Street
Shoreview, MN 55126
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial was well worth the cost in taxpayers'
dollars, was a blessing to consumers It is high time for this trial
result in real changes that will stop the destruction of small
companies. Many Americans think the federal government should have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like
Microsoft will be aware they cannot do these kinds of things, and
not waste valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tom Kirkwood
MTC-00011066
From: Faraz Hach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft
was found to have illegally protected;
Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology
community; Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was
found to have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
Microsoft forced the users to work with its components like ie
(Internet Exp . . .)
--F.Hach
MTC-00011067
From: larry mahoney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:42am
Subject: End Microsoft Anti-trust Case
Please put a STOP to this Clinton-era corporate witch hunt!!!
Thank you.
MTC-00011068
From: mark oliveri
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mark oliveri
626 chestnut st
mifflinburg, pa 17844
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
mark oliveri
MTC-00011069
From: John Quigley
[[Page 25402]]
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Quigley
15 e charlotte ave
wyoming, oh 45215-2113
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John E Quigley II
MTC-00011070
From: David Secret
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:19am
Subject: I urge you do not go light on Microsoft: Consumers and
innovation will suffer.
This was sent via US Mail, I decided to copy you via EMail due
to the risks of US Mail to Washington these days.
I wanted to make you aware of the opinions from industry
regarding the irreparable harm Microsoft has done to the computing
world. They have been blatantly anticompetative, destroying any
competition they could using their OS monopoly and continually
expanding into new areas by leveraging their OS: Web Viewing, Web
servers, Music(Media Player). No one can compete in any area if
Microsoft simply bundles their product with their Operating System
for free at first, they stave out all competition then charge
because they are the only viable player in the market.
They were blatantly apathetic at the charges leveled at them by
the court, they were mocking and even faked an exhibit in order to
show removing Internet Explorer from a Windows computer was
harmful.(Even though any computer expert knows it isn't).[There were
different icon layouts on the computers during the video, showing it
had been cut and another computer used instead of the original.]
It is clear, without stiff penalties and controls on their
future actions a company like this will not deviate from it's
illegal ways. I urge you to consider a breakup of Microsoft into at
least two companies: Operating System, and Office. This would at
least stop some of the leveraging they are doing in those two areas
which they control.
Respectfully,
David Secret
MIS Director
Kearney Development Co., Inc.
MTC-00011071
From: Smith, Janet (123)D 101 (126)Indianapolis(125)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 8:36am
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
Please see attached letter. USAGSmith_Janet_1009_0109.doc.dot>>
Janet
9115 Hague Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46256
January all, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a concerned citizen, I write you regarding the recent
Microsoft settlement. It is foolish, to me, to continue to dissect
an agreement that has been meticulously negotiated for three years.
How can it be, that there may be further litigation on this subject?
The terms that have been outlined are in the interest of the entire
IT sector and can only benefit our position in this highly
competitive global market.
The many concessions that Microsoft has made in this settlement
are directed toward promoting non-Microsoft software. This alone,
shows that Microsoft is working in the interest of our entire
technology industry. Some of the major changes they are willing to
make include licensing, marketing and even future design. Using
these terms as a guideline to get back to business is helpful to the
consumer, the IT sector and our economy as a whole.
Please help to get this settlement moving forward. We need these
guidelines to help pull our IT sector together to be productive in
this global market. Let's make sure that there be no more litigation
against this settlement. I thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Janet Smith
MTC-00011072
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am writing this to urge you to reject the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I believe the settlement as it currently stands would
neither punish Microsoft for the anti-competitive actions it has
taken in the past, nor prevent it from repeating them in the future.
On the contrary, it think it would provide MS with additional
ways to strengthen it's
monopolistic grip on our country's home and business software.
I believe that the only remedy to this problem is to subdivide
Microsoft into separate business entities that would compete in the
marketplace with each other and other technology companies.
Sincerely
Tom Szymanski
MTC-00011073
From: Agnes S Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 8:52am
Subject: settlement
At a time when companies like Enron fraudulently squandered the
public's moneys(mine included), it would be best that one of the
most outstanding and profitable companies be allowed to operate
without further interference. The states that do not wish to accept
the settlement are going to spend a lot of their constituents money
for lawyers' fees. This whole suit was ridiculous, belly aching by
the likes of Scott Mc Neily and his company. He and the other
competitors are just not smart enough! That is what it comes down
to.
The stockholders of Microsoft should sue the justice dept.You
are NOT SERVING PUBLIC INTEREST by further litigation.
Sincerely Agnes Heller
(Microsoft stockholder)
MTC-00011074
From: Mark Rapp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 8:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Rapp
96 Linn Drive
Verona, NJ 07044
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
[[Page 25403]]
Sincerely,
Mark Rapp
MTC-00011075
From: Doody, Scott (FUSA)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
As an informed consumer, I find Microsoft's corporate behavior
extremely distasteful. I find Microsoft's products useful, but
lacking any meaningful alternative I have no basis for comparison.
Microsoft is clearly a monopoly and clearly continue to abuse their
power even in the face of antitrust prosecution. Even the recent
``settlement'' propagates their power by placing them in a position
of prominence in one of the few software markets they don't
control--our children's schools.
The development of Passport and the other components of .Net is
truly alarming, given Microsoft's incompetence with security,
obsession with controlling ``revenue streams'' and thinly veiled
contempt for consumer's wishes. I plan on purchasing a new computer
soon, at which point I will feel forced to wipe Windows XP from the
hard drive (having paid for a license) and installing an older
version of Windows, simply to safeguard my privacy and financial
safety.
The best way to correct a problem like Microsoft is market
forces, but the market is powerless in the face of Microsoft's
influence over software developers and would-be competition. The
role of the government is to protect the market from influences such
as Microsoft, and I am amazed at the lack of progress on the part of
Federal prosecutors. I have read excerpts from Bill Gates' testimony
to Congress, in which he states that maligned Microsoft is not a
monopoly and that consumers have plenty of choices. However,
confronted with the breakup of his company, he then states that
Microsoft is central to the entire personal computing industry; and
that thwarting the company will imperil the entire industry. This,
from a man who stated under oath that the does not know what
``market share'' is.
The DOJ needs to get busy.
Scott Doody
Project Manager
Phone: 302.282.7713
Graphic Production Services (GPS)
First USA Bank
MTC-00011077
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Letters have been faxed to Ashcroft and R. Santorum.
MTC-00011078
From: Michael Willems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:31am
Subject: MS
Hello,
For what it is worth, our company, while it tries to take a
balanced view and uses many MS products, feels that MS is hindering
the industry by its anticompetitive behavior, and that a split-up is
the only remedy that will provide both justice and growth. Please
persevere.
Sincerely,
Michael
Michael Willems [email protected]>
Chief Technology Officer
Digital View Group
http://www.digitalview.com
MTC-00011079
From: Robert Wheat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
As a software developer, I am writing to voice my opinions on
the settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft
Corporation. I want you all to know that I support the settlement
that has been negotiated with Microsoft.
It is my belief that the only reason the Justice Department is
in the middle of this is due to other competitors' inadequacies and
complaining (we are starting to call it--the software complaint
lobby--if you can't sell it then go complain to your congressman).
When Lotus was suing everyone for similar spreadsheet programs, we
all thought--hire more developers--not lawyers. Make your product
better to compete with the competition. That is what I do all day
long. Where is Lotus today? I believe the products that Microsoft
develops are the best in the business. It is the job of the
competition to improve their products in order to be successful as
well. It is my understanding that this settlement was reached after
extensive negotiations with a court appointed mediator. As I
understand it, Microsoft is not getting off that easy. They are
required to make specific changes due to the settlement. For
example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose even more
interfaces that are internal to the Windows' operating system
products for use by its competitors.
I urge that no further action be taken against Microsoft. We all
want to get on with the next generation--not the last generation
software.
Robert Wheat
13423 Post Oak Glen
Cypress, TX 77429
[email protected]
281-890-4566
MTC-00011080
From: norris dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:39am
Subject: Bill and the Boys
If any part of your paycheck comes from tax dollars, you should
give it back. Try this. Stop using any and all software that is made
by Bill and the boys. See how far you get. People like you are the
reason he has done as well as he has.
Norris A. Dalton
[email protected]
MTC-00011081
From: Thomas Angioletti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a software developer in the defense industry and have been
following the anti-trust case against Microsoft. I do not think that
the proposed settlement adequately punishes Microsoft for it's
crimes against the American people in restraining free trade, nor
will it discourage Microsoft from similar future behavior. Microsoft
has shown no remorse for its actions; anything short of a heavy
penalty (such as removing copyright protections for Windows) is an
insult to the rule of law. Furthermore, attempts to monitor
Microsoft's good behavior in the fast-paced tech industry will
always be several steps behind.
In my view, the software industry, due to the high fixed cost
and very low marginal cost of developing software, has a weakness
for monopoly formation. We need a government willing to actively
police our industry and enforce the antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Angioletti
MTC-00011082
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
Please read the letter I've attached. It expresses my opinion on
the Microsoft case.
Thank you,
--Greg Ambrose
1250 Warwick Furnace Road
Pottstown, PA 19465-8903
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to inform you of what I think about the recent
settlement between the Justice Department, and Microsoft. I think
that this case should not have been brought to court in first place.
However, it is in the best interests of all parties involved to
accept this settlement and move on to other things.
The terms are more then fair and reasonable for the government
to accept. Microsoft will be making a number of specific changes to
their products, and business practices. For example, Microsoft has
agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the 20
largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions, including
price. Also, the company has agreed not to retaliate against
computer makers who ship software that compete with anything in its
operating system.
As you can see, Microsoft did not get off easy in this case.
Please accept the settlement, and take no more action against
Microsoft. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Greg Ambrose
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00011083
From: Will Hitchcock
[[Page 25404]]
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was inspired to submit a comment by an article posted on Sun's
web site. This article continues to convince me that we live in a
world rife with thieves. Thieves that now have the US government
working for them. I will keep this short since there must be
thousands of comments to sift through. Microsoft has only done one
thing wrong: a contract violation with Sun in terms of their
implementation of the Java Virtual Machine (they added Windows
specific logic). Absolutely that is a contract violation and should
be punished. Every single other allegation is bogus. The US
government has become the henchman for Oracle, Sun and the rest of
the thieving whiners out there. Microsoft crushed Netscape because
they bundled internet explorer. Good. I would like to sell a
calculator program but Microsoft includes one in the operation
system. Is a calculator part of the operating system? Isn't
Microsoft using it's monopoly to keep me down? Shouldn't everyone be
forced to pay for my calculator program?
Please keep in mind, that the only true monopolies (100% market
share) that have existed in the history of this nation were created
by the government. The free market has never yielded a monopoly--not
a single one. Standard Oil's market share was smaller than
Microsoft's for example. The government's law suit is an attack on
freedom and therefore the foundation of modern civilization.
Thanks for your time.
Will Hitchcock
Principal Software Engineer
Delphi Technology Inc.
Phone: (617) 494-8361 x2046
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00011084
From: Jeff Whicker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I would like to add my voice to the 9 States and the European
community in a plea to reject the proposed Microsoft settlement. The
settlement provides no remedy for the past abuses of Microsoft's
monopoly, and it provides no effective means of insuring that
Microsoft will end it's abuse of that power.
I was very dismayed that the Monopoly was not broken up. Why
should developers such as myself be given sub-standard documentation
concerning Microsoft's APIs while Microsoft's own developers are
given access to ``secret'' APIs? A company which owns the most
popular operating system simply has no business being in software
development. They are competing unfairly with the very community
which MADE their operating system popular in the first place.
If the software community had not propelled Microsoft's OS to
the forefront then it would be understandable that Microsoft would
develope software to be written on it's own OS in an attempt to make
their system more useable. But it obviously didn't happen that way.
Microsoft first let companies like Wordperfect, Netscape, Lotus,
Quicken, and thousands of others develope software for their OS.
Then after their OS was already a monopoly, they went into direct
competition with those companies and they did so entirely unfairly.
They developed secret APIs which were never documented for the
general community of software developers while documenting them
fully to their own developers.
I realize that the proposed settlement prohibits Microsoft from
continuing this practice. Yet the settlement does not make any
remedy for the damage this practice has already done. Nor is any
agency with real teeth going to be able to enforce the agreement. If
Microsoft again fails to completely document it's own API's they
will simply claim it was a mistake. And then only if they are
caught. They need to be broke up.
Sincerely,
Jeff Whicker
MTC-00011085
From: Chris Lovett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chris Lovett
2155 Grand Brook Circle
Orlando, FL 32065
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Chris Lovett
MTC-00011086
From: Gene Averett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gene Averett
3889 Marlesta Drive
San Diego, CA 92111
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and
[[Page 25405]]
judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gene Averett
MTC-00011087
From: Scott Prugh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Prugh
2840 N Lincoln Ave
Chicago, IL 60657
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Scott Prugh
MTC-00011088
From: Account CONSULT-SMI AI/SM-I
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 9:58am
Subject: Trial against MS
** Confidential **
Dear Sirs,
I would like to state my opinion concering the proposed
settlement. As a software developer, the quality of my own work
depends on the quality of intermediate software like operating
systems platforms or databases. Also, the level of stress that I
have to face within my daily work with computers and the bearability
of the job I do are majorly influenced by the actions of global
players like Microsoft or Sun Microsystems.
Therefore I speak as a person directly concerned by Microsoft's
policies and stategies and I cannot resist but to tell you that the
business part of my life would be much more bearable if Microsoft
would stop their ongoing seeding of discord.
Lately I bought a notebook and after a complete market survey, I
found out that there was only one Notebook-vendor who could offer me
notebooks without a preinstalled Windows operating system. If you
purchase a Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung or other notebook, then you
can choose to take this graphics card or the other, you can
configure every aspect. However you are always forced to purchase a
Windows OS along with it. This is so up to the very day. If you just
make the test, walk into a PC store, choose a particular notebook,
and ask if you could purchase this laptop without a preinstalled
windows, then you will always hear that this is not possible.
A fair competition between software vendors will only be made
possible again, if some institution like the DOJ controls Microsofts
behaviour. ---- Another aspect is that within a free-market economy,
the best product should win the customers approval. Microsoft
however is using its predominant position in todays market to force
all software vendors into using their proprietary windows protocols.
In the earlier days I used to program windows software and my
work was hard. Nowadays I am only using Java software coming from
Sun Microsystems. Since that time, my work is much easier. My Point
is, that although Java technology is superior to anything Microsoft
has to offer, it is not going to spread among the people and its use
it not going to increase because Microsoft again is using it
monopoly to suppress Java technology.
If microsoft was acting in a fair way, they would reckon that
Sun Microsystems is offering a product that is open and top-nodge an
would try to catch up. Microsoft could even adopt Java technology
because it is free. Nonetheless Microsoft prefers to use its
monopoly to boycott this outstanding technology and therefore
suppress the improvement of software products directly.
By any means necessary, microsofts superciliousness has to be
abolished. Laws must have a substance in reality and may not only
look good on a piece of paper. It is necessary to apply strict
regulations to Microsofts business mien.
Whatever judgement you decide on, it must be so made that it
guarantees that Microsoft cannot go on acting as they do now in the
future. To my mind the measures proposed so far are not sufficient.
Microsoft not only deserves a higher punishment--it will be
necessary to ensure a change in behaviour. Microsoft has had a
chance to show that they are willing to cooperate but shows no sign
of this. For example, Applte has integrated Suns Java platform
within its newest operating system called Mac OS. Linux
distrubutions come with a preinstalled Java platform. However,
Microsoft is not integrating a modern Java-platform into its
brandnew windows XP.
At the same time Microsoft is trying to become the only holder
of people's electronic identities by setting up a proprietary
platform that holds peoples secure identities. This project is
called Project Hailstorm and Microsoft is using its monopoly once
more to push this technology forward, not only ruining better
proposals but also leading into an era where your complete identity
as a person is hosted by one private company!!!
best regards
Sascha Coenen
MTC-00011089
From: Ernie Bello
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ernie Bello
610 Park Ave Apt. B10
Rochester, NY 14607
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ernie Bello
MTC-00011090
From: David Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft case comments
U.S. Department of Justice
Gentlemen/Ladies:
Refer: Microsoft case.
I understand the DOJ is taking comments about the Microsoft
Case. Microsoft was clearly a case of monopolistic behavior. The
company should have been split into four separate operating units.
1. Operating Systems.
2. Internet related software.
3. All other software.
4. All other business activities.
Why this wasn't done is a mystery to me.
David Henry
1620 S. 118th E. Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74128-5636
MTC-00011091
From: Frederick R. Brock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I feel that the proposed remedy fall's short of curtailing
microsoft's monolpoly. I am a developer and devlope primarly java
based enterprise systems, this means my inability to recieve windows
OS specificate API (application programmers interface) information
does not effect my ability to deliver a solution to my clients,
however, from a price perspective I just spent 200.00 (199.99) on my
UPGRADE to windows XP and just a quarter before I spent another
200.00 dollars on my UPGRADE to windows 2000. I can't afford MS
Office which is near 1000.00 for a UPGRADE with the full version
over 1000.00+ they can charge this because they are a monopoly!!!!.
I have been around computers my entire life and watched as DOS
evolved into windows and MS grew to become a monopoly. I used to be
able to buy a Office suite of my choice from 5 or 6 vendors for
about 79.00 dollars, MS drove all of them under and now If I want to
be compatible with the rest of the world I have to pay MS 1000.00+
for a sub-quality office product. I can't afford to do this as a
small business, I wish their was an alternative. But since you will
not separate them or at least cap the price increases that they pass
on to the consumer for MINOR updates to their product, no other
vendor will have a chance.
In addition, when I installed my new XP upgrade it ruined 6
months of work, some of which I cannot re-create, I can't get my
money back so I guess I am stuck. This is a big problem!!!!. Their
software now answers questions and chooses options for you, as a
result it ate my HD to crap with out giving me, the owner of the
computer, a chance to intervene, thier should be a law against this.
I lost time and money. Frederick R. Brock
Brock Consulting Inc.
[[Page 25406]]
MTC-00011092
From: Raymond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:29am
Subject: Comment on about the MS settlement
Hello:
I work with schools and community centers in the LA area. Many
schools and community centers would like to use Linux as there main
educational Operating System. After watching the video of Dan Kegel
at Linux Public Broadcasting Network I also conclude that Microsoft
must not create barriers to prevent MS applications from running on
Linux via the WINE project. If the DOJ would enforce this one
condition the US software market would likly return to a competitive
market again. Most importantly disadvantaged ethnic groups and poor
schools would have the technological skills they need to compete in
the job market. Please watch the video at www.lpbn.org to find out
what the really bright tech people of this country are saying. The
link is www.lpbn.org.
Sincerely,
Raymond Stedng
MTC-00011093
From: Brian Densmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice and honorable judiciary, A peer of
mine sent this letter to you. I have previously sent in a letter.
But this perhaps goes a little bit further in explaining my thoughts
on the matter.
Some of my Information Technology background:
B.S. Computer Science
8 years professional programming employment
20 years computer experience
10 years professional computer/computerized hardware experience
30 years electronic experience (started experimenting age 10)
In other words I have extensive knowledge of things electronic
(of which digital computers are but one branch of) from both a
hardware and software level.
I believe the Microsoft Settlement has been a capitulation by
the current administration and the Department of Justice to the big
money donations of the Microsoft lobbying and campaign
contributions. The US won this case! Why has the justice department
settled for this woefully inadequate solution to Microsoft's
conviction as a monopolist? This is the penalty phase of this case,
and yet there appears to be no penalty for Microsoft, and in fact if
implemented as written, could actually increase Microsoft's
Monopoly. Exactly! Microsoft has already been found guilty. While I
can understand the DOJ backing off the separation of Microsoft, that
doesn't mean they don't need to be reined in and made to behave like
a good Monopolist. It has been apparent for some time Microsoft has
flaunted the law in many aspects. They have taken other peoples
copyrighted and or patented software and changed the copyright or
patent information and sold it as their own (just one example: STAC
software's stacker compression software). This kind of lack of
morals needs punishment. They just keep doing this over and over,
and getting way with this! this is a travesty ands a mockery of the
American legal system. Don't let Microsoft manipulate the law to fit
them; manipulate Microsoft to fit the law.
For true justice to be served, the courts must decide the
punishment and not the politically (and monetarily) motivated DOJ.
For this reason, the settlement as currently written must be
REJECTED!
I would like to point out several flaws in the settlement and
recommend some alternatives that would seem to make more sense. I
refer to the settlement found at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9400/9495.htm
III.A Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM... Not only
should Microsoft not be able to punish the OEM, but OEM pricing
should be disallowed for Microsoft. The OEM vendors should be
required to pay full retail price for the operating system and
office products, and pass this on to the consumer. In other words,
strike paragraphs
III.B.2 and III.B.3 from the settlement. Furthermore, the OEM
should be required to list this cost as part of total cost of the
machine, and offer all machines they sell with either alternative
operating systems, or no operating system at all installed. This
would provide clear disclosure to consumers of the ``Microsoft tax''
they are paying with each new computer system. Allowing users to
remove items from a purchased machine is inadequate, as they have
already paid the ``tax'' and Microsoft goes unpunished.
III.D ...Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and
OEMs, ...the APIs and related Documentation... While this is a step
in the right direction, Microsoft should be compelled to make
public, not simply to certain companies but to the public, all
operating system APIs, all communication APIs, and every single file
format, current and future, created or used by any of their
products. The interfaces and file formats should not be allowed to
be considered ``intellectual property'' that would allow Microsoft
to restrict access by imposing ``royalties or other payment of
monetary consideration'' simply to interface with their products.
This will promote true competition by allowing other companies and
the open source community to write programs that can be fully
compatible with, and have equivalent functionality to the Microsoft
monopoly products. APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are
exactly that. They are an interface; a way of communicating between
two closed systems. If Microsoft hides the APIs, then only Microsoft
can communicate with that system. Microsoft does disclose a number
of APIs, but not the ones they use ``internally''; which allows them
to ``integrate'' certain things (like Explorer) into the OS. No one
else can use these APIs without reverse engineering them, because
they are hidden from the public.
II.J--No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third
parties...
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license... This
paragraph reads like a major legal loophole for Microsoft that will
allow them to get away with
keeping large parts of the interface to their systems a secret by
saying that the disclosure would ``compromise the security'' of that
system. The APIs and file formats I mentioned above should be
excluded from this paragraph.
Section V. Termination
B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time
extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with
such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
So if I have interpreted this paragraph correctly, if Microsoft
fails to comply with this settlement in the first five years, their
punishment is to spend two more years not complying!? How is this an
incentive for Microsoft to comply with the settlement? This section
completely removes what few teeth this settlement ever had. This
section should be completely rewritten such that if Microsoft fails
to comply with the settlement, any and all intellectual property not
in compliance will be forfeited to the public domain. That would be
an incentive for compliance!
In summary, the Microsoft punishment for being a convicted
monopolist should include the opening and documenting of all
Application Programming Interfaces for their products, the
documented specification of all file formats for documents created
by their products should be public domain, and the complete
prohibition of the discounts and ``bundling'' Microsoft currently
engages in with hardware vendors. Additionally, the legal loopholes
should be removed, and the penalty for non-compliance should be
severe.
A settlement that truly encourages competition is very much in
the national interest and national security. A study released a year
ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and International
Studies, pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually
poses a national security risk. We can not allow any one company to
maintain a strangle hold on something as important to this nation as
the information technology infrastructure of this country. It is
very important for the future of this nation that a careful and
deliberate penalty that restores true competition to the software
marketplace be implemented.
Thanks you for your time,
Jim Herrmann
Kansas City, Kansas
KC Linux Users Group--to unsubscribe send mail to
[email protected] Enter without the quotes in body of message
``unsubscribe kclug''
Thank you,
Brian Densmore
Associate
mailto:[email protected]
CompuTech Business Solutions, Inc.
http://www.ctbsonline.com/
(816) 880-0988 x215
MTC-00011094
From: Paul Farwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:34am
[[Page 25407]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want to voice my concerns about the proposed December 7th
settlement of Microsoft antitrust case. These views are my own and
not those of my current or previous employers.
As an experienced software developer, I see effects of
Microsoft's monopoly on the software industry that are probably
invisible to the average software user. It's been my responsibility
to investigate and recommend software tools to my employer. In many
cases, there is a reluctance to consider anything other than a
solution using Microsoft tools and technology. The reason is not
necessarily because Microsoft solutions (like Visual C++ or Visual
Basic) are considered better than the alternatives. It's the concern
that alternative solutions have no built-in support for deploying
applications on the Windows operating system, which a large majority
of our customers use. Java technology is a really good case in
point. For years, Java has had the potential to provide users with
complete and powerful applications on their web browsers in a
browser-independent and OS-independent way. It is a much better tool
for writing sophisticated web applications than HTML, which has
become the de facto standard for web user interfaces. Most users
don't realize how primitive most web applications are because they
don't know what the alternatives are. While it is true that HTML is
an open standard, one not controlled by Microsoft, it is also very
limited. HTML is good at presenting text and pictures, but is a poor
technology for developing a good web application, like a on-line
scheduling tool. It amazes me that even today most web applications
are displayed in HTML (and JavaScript). Why is that? Java applets
would be the primary tool used in web applications if Internet
Explorer had not won the ``browser wars''. IE's support for applets
is poor because it offers out-dated (or nonexistent) Java support.
Microsoft has attempted to introduce their own active content
solution, ActiveX, but this solution limits the software developer
to Microsoft technology on both the front-end (the browser) and the
back-end (the middleware services on the network host). It works
only if the software developer takes the `Microsoft everywhere'
approach.
It is very frustrating to see software vendors avoid Java
technology, not because of the merits or demerits of the technology
itself, but because of the perception that Microsoft won't support
it. Ordinary consumers of software may not fully appreciate this,
but it does have a powerful effect on the kinds of products we can
deliver to them.
As a remedy, it makes sense to me that Microsoft supply a
complete and up-to-date version of Java with every copy of the
Windows operating system. This would remove the burden from the
software vendor of struggling to get good Java support on an end-
user's computer. That way, Java technology could be judged on its
merits, not on whether Microsoft supports it.
Paul Farwell
Software Engineer
MTC-00011095
From: richard brosnahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
I was disappointed in the proposed settlement the Department of
Justice offered for its case against Microsoft. Where the case found
them guilty of using their monopoly power to crush and stifle
competition, the settlement does little to punish them, and provides
nothing to deter them from doing it again.
It has been determined that they used illegal tactics to become
what they are. Stifled competition means innovation is stifled as
well. I urge you not to accept the weak settlement proposal. It is
in the public interest that a stronger penalty be applied, as well
as stronger remedies to prevent Microsoft from continuing their
illegal practices.
Best regards,
Richard Brosnahan
Senior Software Engineer
Xperts, Inc
email: [email protected]
web: http://www.xperts.com/
CC:Richard Brosnahan
MTC-00011096
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
After reviewing the Prohibited conduct section it appears that
Microsoft is left to review its practices and conduct business in a
fair and unbiased manner and given the facts to date this has not
been the case. I would recommend that this settlement not be granted
in its present form and sent back to the courts.
Steve Lochren
MTC-00011097
From: Liz Lindsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
I am writing to let you know I support the Bush Administration
and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. Not only do I
believe that Microsoft has done nothing to harm me as a consumer,
but I believe my life has been greatly improved because of all the
technology brought to the market because of Microsoft. The advent of
the home computer has transformed my life and 'raised the level of
all boats'. To prove there's no monopoly in my home, we own a
Macintosh, and we also run Unix on our server, though we use
Microsoft on our PCs. I have never been forced to use Bill Gates
products, and the ones I do use, are used through choice. Explorer
is without a doubt a better product than Navigator. There is a
choice, and 90% of users agree. The 10% who use Netscape are proof
that the government had a specious argument for `monopoly'. Stop
wasting my taxpayer dollars on this trial. Drop this case! Free up
Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that
currently truly harm the public.
Elizabeth Lindsey
2125 Colorwood Ct.
Fuquay Varina, NC 27526
919-557-4966
MTC-00011098
From: Marvin Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:38am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I would like to submit some argument as an amicus curiae. The
Attorney General gave me your e-mail address, for which I am very
thankful. I am aware that this amounts to a large amount of reading,
but until today I had no idea of how to contact you. I strongly
request that you take the time, especially to read the information
posted at the first URL in the enclosed message. I lived and worked
in Silicon Valley (San Jose, California) from 1973-1995 working in
the semiconductor industry. As such, I am pretty well acquainted
with the history of Microsoft and Bill Gates, which the huge
majority of people in this nation are totally unaware of. Secondly,
I strongly suggest that my 5-point ``settlement'' proposal contained
in the enclosed letter is (in all likelihood) the only one that will
do true justice to the people of this nation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marvin Gardner
Boise, Idaho
From: Marvin Gardner
To: Connecticut AG; Florida AG; Iowa AG; Kansas AG; Massachusetts
AG; Minnesota AG; Utah AG
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
Bill Gates, beyond question, is an incorrigible (non-lethal)
sociopath at core. (If you would like a quick biographical (personal
and business) proof of that statement, you can find it on a page I
authored and posted a couple of years ago: http://sonsofliberty.org/
wrecking--crew/bill--gates.html In a nutshell, Gates obtained his de
facto control of both, the home computer and internet software
fields by the skillful (and totally unprincipled) ``use'' of legal
stalling. By financially outlasting his opponents through an endless
series of challenges and appeals until his opponents dropped out.
Only one company--Apple Computer (which was financially as large as
Microsoft at the time of the law suit)--has been able to financially
``stay the course'' with Microsoft, and Apple won! Last summer, when
the Appeals Court threw out Judge Jackson's penalty (but verified
the verdict) and the U.S. Attorney General publicly announced it
would ``settle'' with Microsoft out of court, I contacted U.S.
Senator Larry Craig's local (Boise, Idaho) office, sat down with one
of his employees and ``educated'' that employee on what Microsoft
had done throughout its history in order to control the software
business, and set down the steps (conditions) that are necessary in
any ``settlement'' that would bring justice to the people of
America. And I urged that employee (with whom I have a friendship)
to urge the DC office to have Sen.
[[Page 25408]]
Craig pass on to AG John
Ashcroft. (Craig and Ashcroft have had an especially close personal
relationship, through their ``off duty'' participation in the
``Singing Senators'' quartet.) I have no idea as to whether or not
the Senator did pass the information on to Ashcroft. I only know
that, just a few weeks later, the DoJ announced it's (total cave-in)
to Microsoft. I also know that, sometime during the first 10 months
of last year (the FEC printout I received last November does not
give the dates of donations, just the ``span of time'' during which
they were given), the Microsoft PAC gave $6,000 to Senator Craig.
And considering the fact that, in all the years Craig has been a
Senator and Microsoft has been donating to Congressmen, it had given
a grand total of only $2,000 total to Craig, I wonder. Anyway...
There are 5 points that any settlement with Microsoft will have
to include in order for the American people (and software
businesses) to at last have justice:
1. All Microsoft software must be ``open architecture'' (a
technical term that the software industry understands).
2. Microsoft must publish and distribute free of any and all
charges the source code of any and all software it releases.
3. There must be total unbundling of all Microsoft task-specific
software.
4. All future Microsoft software releases must be 100%
``backwards compatible'' with all earlier Microsoft editions of
similar programs.
5. All future Microsoft release must contain no ``blocking'' of
competitors' software. I feel certain that some of you might not
understand the importance of some (if not all) of those 5 points, so
I will have an explanation of the ``why'' of each of them posted on
my personal web site by tomorrow (January 11). It will be accessible
at www.bigskytel.com/marvingardner/MS--justice.html
Yours truly,
Marvin Gardner
MTC-00011099
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
In my opinion the entire pursuit of MSFT is unwarranted and the
DOJ is overstepping the boundary of what the antitrust laws were
intended for. The entire endeavor was pushed by a bunch of crybabies
who couldn't compete in the market place and hence enlisted big
brother in their fight. MSFT's bundling is a non-problem for me...I
just don't use those features I don't want.
Charles Dryden
232 Rebecca Dr #447
Alamo, Tx. 78516
956-783-7410
MTC-00011100
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Brad Wellington and I am professional software
developer currently living in New York. I am very concerned about
the Microsoft trial because I believe that the remedy will have long
term effects that will be felt for years. I am particuarly concerned
about Microsoft's bundling of middleware into their operating
system. The proposed setllement doesn't address this behavior, which
I find quite disturbing. There is absolutley nothing in the
settlement that would prevent them from ``Netscape''-ing another
product. I am fairly certain that Microsoft's long term goal is to
build almost all software worldwide and knock everyone else out of
every market, and they plan to use windows to do it. Look at Windows
XP. They are trying to stop Kodak from selling digital imaging
software, they are trying to eliminate AOL instant messanger by
embedding Windows Messanger into XP. It is outragoues to me that
they have compley ignored the court's verdict of guilty. They know
it is too late for Netscape, they have been pretty much destroyed
however XP is trying to replace even more products. It is in your
power to keep this from happeneing again and I implore you to do so.
Thank you.
Brad Wellington
Senior Software Engineer
MTC-00011101
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please allow things to move forward. The Settlement is tough but
fair. Further litigation is a waste of resources.
Thank you,
Joanne Pickrel
MTC-00011102
From: Karthik Raman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karthik Raman
1234 Alphabet Lane
Denton, TX 76205
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
I went to a website that wanted me to send an email with some
crap about how the DOJ wasted money on the MS trial. However, I feel
that is far from the truth. MS is a horrible monopoly, and I wish it
had been broken up. Thus, I hope NOT for the trial to be dropped,
but I wish the DOJ could be more aggressive in their strategy to
bring down MS.
Sincerely,
Karthik Raman--Senior at the Texas Academy of Mathematics and
Science
MTC-00011103
From: Logan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:37am
I submitted comments earlier concerning this case. I need to add
one more. What are you smoking? Give Microsoft the opportunity to
close out one of the few remaining competitive markets existing in
the computer industry? Make them ``pay'' 1.1 billion (less than one
month's income) in ``free'' software for one year? Free is the
correct term. You propose that they give away ``refurbished''
machines that have
already been amoratized and written off and software that they
create internally? They don't even have to pay for packaging! Why,
come to think of it, they don't even have to pay the taxes on the
sales because technically it's a donation.
Then, when the year is up and it's time to upgrade? Hmm, I
wonder who's going to end up paying for Johnny to get his new
version of Office... Could it be... oh... ME? Are my taxes going to
help Microsoft expand it's control over the market? Wow, what a way
to solve the problems of the needy. I wonder how much Microsoft
stands to make on this deal. Sounds like it could be in the billions
of dollars in continued revenue over the next ten years or so.
Billions of dollars of MY TAX MONEY.
I thought we elected intelligent people to work in our
government. Oh, wait I'm mixing my adjectives. I meant GREEDY when I
wrote intelligent. Sorry, my mistake.
Amazing. Simply amazing. We'll as long as you've got it, why
don't you share whatever you're smoking so we can all bear this
royal bending over a little more gracefully. I'm sure with the lobby
money you're getting from Microsoft to write this case off you can
afford to buy a little extra for us little people.
Thank
You,
Logan
Creative Director, USinns.com
MTC-00011104
From: Lon Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As a concerned citizen I would like to voice my opinion on this
matter. Microsoft has been found guilty of using their monopoly
power to gain market share and effectively reduce or eliminate
competition in numerous areas. The current proposed remedy of
requiring them to ``donate'' products, services and/or money to the
educational institutions in the United States is unacceptable. This
will basically allow them to capture the one final market that they
are not the dominant force in, effectively driving Apple, SGI, Sun
and others out of that market. The penalty for using and abusing a
monopoly should be harsh and impose a true restriction on the
companies abilities to use this power again. Since the break up
option is not an option and a 1 billion dollar ``donation'' to
education only expands their market share and power to influence,
some other remedy needs to be found that truly punishes this company
for their past actions.
The bottom line is they broke the law, stifled competition,
eliminated innovation and leveraged this power to gain wealth, power
and mass market control. This needs to be dealt with in a manner
that prevents further abuse and sends a clear message that
corporations will be held accountable to the laws of the United
States of America.
In this time Americans expect and demand that our government
acts in the best interests of the citizens and not some corporation
that still refuses to admit it did anything wrong.
[[Page 25409]]
Please do NOT
accept the current remedy being proposed and go back to the drawing
board and find something that will stop this from becoming another
example the citizens of America use when explaining how corporations
get special treatment.
Lon Baker
MTC-00011105
From: richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:21am
Subject: Stop the harrassment
When is the government going to stop the harrassment? The
government made a mistake going after IBM years ago and I think the
government is making another big mistake. I am a consumer and I
don't think Microsoft has done anything wrong. I don't see the
anticompetitive practices, Microsoft's products are cheap. Yes,
Microsoft is huge and is the big bully on the block, but, how can
you say that there is no competition in the software industry when
everything around us is thriving. Microsoft has set the standard and
it is difficult for other companies to accept. There would be chaos
if there were no standard Windows operating system like Microsoft's.
I see no problem with Microsoft's practices so, and let's more on.
Richard L. Bernal
MTC-00011106
From: Chad McCaslin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:21am
Subject: final settlement on Microsoft
The final judgement obviously falls short of having Microsoft be
responsible for the problems they cause in forcing consumers to use
microsoft products. Just take a look at the latest operating system
from Microsoft and you will see that they are now attacking the AOL
Instant Messaging Service. I personally installed XP Professional
Windows operating system from Microsoft. It automatically loads
Windows Messager into the OS, but that is not the bad part. The
problem is that the Windows Messaging client cannot be de-installed.
I tried to remove it from the task bar. On re-boot, microsoft placed
it back into the task bar. I tried to remove the program files
directory and received registery errors. I tried to remove all
references to the Windows Messager from the registery and was happy
for a short with the product not running on my system until the next
windows upgrade when all of a sudden the product was back. I have
not configured it nor do I use it (I use AOL IM instead) but it
keeps telling me I need to set the NET stuff and start using it.
(this is known as badgering) Somehow Microsoft needs to get that
this is wrong and to stop doing it. The current penalty for this
type of issue is not even noticable for Microsoft. Obviously,
Microsoft believes they can keep it in the judicial system until the
problem is a faint memory and the companies that they destroy along
the way are just a memory. We are a nation that is suppose to punish
those who do wrong even if it was a long time ago. How are we as a
nation to promote free enterprises to startup when the monopoly
(microsoft) will uncut them before they start. People have a right
to use the software they want and to not have big brother force us
to use their software. Internet Explorer was one example, Now that
that problem is basically behind Microsoft, they are attacking the
next product. How do we stop this? The best way is to make it not
profitable to cause this type of pain. Even if it is long ago, make
sure that the impacts to Microsofts ability to cause similar future
problems are extremely hampered. If that causes the price for
microsoft products to increase, then maybe other vendors will have a
chance to make a difference. When criminals cause the same problem
over and over, many states take on the principal of three strike and
your out. Well, Microsoft has been doing this for alot more than
three strikes. When will we make a stand and say that is enough?
Chad McCaslin
Raytheon
972-205-5753
[email protected]
MTC-00011107
From: Ted Marquis Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing in support of the settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust suit. I would like to see this case concluded as soon as
possible. As a small business owner, I am concerned by the fact this
case was brought against Microsoft at all. Microsoft has been an
innovative, competitive company. Companies, especially those engaged
in high-tech endeavors, must remain competitive to remain in
business. I do not agree with punishing Microsoft for its ability to
remain competitive.
I do, however, believe the case should be settled as rapidly as
possible. To achieve this end, Microsoft has made a variety of
concessions that go above and beyond the scope of the lawsuit. I do
not necessarily agree with the concessions made, as they appear to
be overly restrictive. For example, the creation of a technical
oversight committee, which will monitor Microsoft's business
practices, seems overly intrusive to Microsoft. Despite my belief
that Microsoft is doing more than should be required, I support its
decision to make such concessions so this case will settle. I
appreciate your review of my comments, and hope to see this case
settle as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Ted Marquis
President/CEO
MTC-00011108
From: Daniel L. Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can't tell you how pleased I am with the rejection of
Microsoft's settlement proposal.
Microsoft has demonstrated over the years that it seems to
believe that it is a nation unto
itself, with its own rules, regardless of what others experience.
What particularly strikes me is the arrogance of their proposal.
I would call it a great demonstration of a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.
Thank you for your astute and wise decision. Microsoft's arrogance
will continue, until it realizes that there are other people and
companies that have as much rights as they.
I commend your decision.
Thank you,
David L. Cole
14 Abbott St.
Greenfield, MA 01301
MTC-00011110
From: David Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear USDOJ,
I would only comment on one part of the settlement. Microsofts
proposal to donate computer equipment and software to needy schools.
Although I applaud the concept, I think it does not server as a
punishment to the monopoly. Microsoft does not yet dominate the
education market. This is simply an opertunity for them to try to
gain dominance in the market.
I strongly recommend rejecting any part of the settlement that
might increase Microsofts market share in the education market.
Dave Graham
520 N. Sherwood St. #31
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 484-4577
[email protected], [email protected]
MTC-00011111
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case has taken a protracted period of time. A
short summary of the situation indicates that not much has been
accomplished in regard to the basic issue of concern. The public
interest would be best served by moving away from the concept of
anti-trust and more to the point of providing competition to
Microsoft. Let s see the competitors take more of a role of
competition and less weining about Microsoft s success. T
MTC-00011112
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement seems fair and I think the public is more than
ready for this lengthy expensive ordeal to be over. As a neighbor of
Microsoft I would love to see this resolved so that residents of
this area have one less source of economic insecurity.
MTC-00011113
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is fair to all concerned. I hope the deal with the
others involved will be setteled in the same way.
[[Page 25410]]
Anything less will not help America.
MTC-00011114
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I firmly believe that this farse of a case has gone on long
enough. While everyone and his dog has been trying to railroad
Microsoft other companies have more blatantly defied the most basic
of monopoly laws to move against this company. In the end what has
that gained the consumer? Nothing but scandal. It was clear in the
beginning and is still clear to me now that although what Microsoft
DID do (which wasn't nearly as much as what is being done by OTHER
firms in the same industry) was wrong this was nothing more than
jealousy and hatred of a man who did us all a huge favor for a
relatively little price. Without Microsoft the computer revolution
would have stuck to a few hackers doing a few things until Apple got
their footing. What do I think of the settlement? Good enough if not
overly strict. Let Microsoft go.
MTC-00011115
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please Approve the Microsoft Settlement it provides more than
enough remedy to the charges presented in the case. It is not in the
public s interest for this trial to drag on any longer than it
already has. Lets settle and get on with the remedy to correct any
wrong that has occurred and we can put this behind us.
Respectfully
Mr. Joe Public
MTC-00011116
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop the litigation against Microsoft I think the waste
of gov t money has gone on log enough!!
Thank you
CB
MTC-00011117
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs It is time to finalize the settlement of the Microsoft
case. It has dragged on beyond any reasonable period. It is unfair
of the government to serve as henchmen for Microsofts competitors
any longer. You have reached an amiable settlement. It is time to
close the case.
Marjorie Larsen
MTC-00011118
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Govt. should have better things to do with the
taxpayers dollars than to hound corporations just because they have
the know how to make a success of their venture. So please do
something constructive instead of distructive in the spending of our
money.If you want to go after someone go after the people that
provide the American dream only to those who do not have the gumtion
to do anything on their own AKA illegals immigrants from the so
called underpriveliged countrys any ambition they have when they get
here is soon replaced with every handout the U.S. Govt. can muster
small business loans food stamps welfare & no limit to the amount of
children they can have which is no burden to them because you
provide evrything neccessary Xtras for every child born. I was
talking to the Sheriff Dept. here about the kids born to most of
these families and they call it their job SECURITY that s some
tribute.
MTC-00011119
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that this whole law suit was not only unfair and
unwarranted but also an unnecessary and frivilous waste of taxpayers
money. I think that was the result of a lot of envy and jealousy
from bitter underachievers. Bill Gates has done much more in
compromising and trying to make up for something that wasn t a wrong
in the first place than most people would do. I think he should be
praised and commented for what he and his genius have given
individuals businesses the U.S.A. and the world instead of our
letting envious bitter petty and little-minded idiots punish him for
his success and achievements. I guarantee you that if any one of
them had created what he has they would feel entirely different. The
whole world owes him gratitude and praise not this stupid
backstabbing.
MTC-00011120
From: allen.severance@secure aplications.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The whole matter had it s origin in the envy of Microsoft
competitor s. Microsoft did not do anything illegal. The lame
justice department then headed up my Janet Reno lacked the forsight
to see this. Instsead of demonizing Bill Gates we need to admire
what he did for this country. Microsoft should not only be released
from any anti-trust suit they should be apologized to. Thank you.
MTC-00011121
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets get on with it. This legal draging of legal manuvers must
come to a halt.
MTC-00011122
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is time to put this Microsoft case behind us. It is
so obvious to me that Microsofts competitors are pushing to keep it
going. AOL should be put under the microscope . . . . Hummmm. What
would we find there . . .? If it wernt for Microsoft I wouldn t be
typing this right now. Microsoft has hepled far more people in the
learning of computers than any other company. Let s save a little of
the TAX Payers TAX money and close this case. The Government has
allready spent far to much on this case. Thank You
MTC-00011123
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop punishing success. Microsoft made the desktop
computer possible. America should honor innovation and customer
service not cave in ti Microsoft s whining competitors. The proposed
settlement is fair to all parties concerned including the American
public.
MTC-00011125
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While I personally don t believe Microsoft should ever have been
brought to judgement I firmly believe that it is time to put this
behind us. Continued litigation serves no purpose except to line the
attorneys pockets with more of my hard earned money. I would much
prefer to use that money buying more software from Microsoft Corp.
Sincerely
Dieter Sellers Loyal Microsoft User
MTC-00011126
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THEY ARE CROOKS AND SHOULD BE IN JAIL BUT AS USUAL THE LEGAL
SYSTEM ONLY WORKS FORTHE BIG GUYS. IT`S NOT FUNNY ANYMORE.BUT YOU
STILL DON`T GET IT.YOU TOOK A DIVE.THHHATS ALL FOLKS!!
MTC-00011127
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
end the charges against Microsoft.
MTC-00011128
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe STONGLY that no company should blatantly violate our
nation s anti-trust laws. I believe more strongly it is time to
resolve the blackhole of uncertainty surrounding the Microsoft case.
There will NEVER be a settlement or verdict that is without strong
controversy. America and Americans need your wisdom experience and
good judgement during this difficult time. We need to remember that
innovation made and keeps America great. Judge Kotelly this is a
TOUGH decision for you. But this is a reasonable settlement.
Americans
[[Page 25411]]
everywhere will be positively impacted by resolving this
case as expeditiously as possible. Thank you for reviewing these
comments. I have included my name and number if you would like to
contact me. PS FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 176 shares of Microsoft. I
also own 400 shares of Oracle which is Microsoft s biggest corporate
detractor.
MTC-00011129
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement is enough. It is time to stop wasting
time and money on a suit that should probably never have been filed
at least on the basis it rests and move forward. Let the consumers
determine what products we want and the market will in the long run
even itself out.
MTC-00011130
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement with Microsoft is in the best
interest of everyone and good for thr economy
E.R.
MTC-00011131
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the settlement. Let this be the end of it so Bill
Gates and Microsoft can move on and get back to business doing what
they do best.
MTC-00011132
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe Microsoft is being punished for being creative and
far-seeing so lesser companies can cash in on their expertise.
Reward Microsoft for being inventive don t punish them.
MTC-00011133
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to let Microsoft arguably one of America s all-time
greatest engines of enterprise get back to business. Let not our
government throw any more monkey wrenches into our best companies.
Let freedom in enterprise ring!
MTC-00011134
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
aaaaaaaa
MTC-00011135
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opion this case has gone on way to long and is starting to
burden the american tax payer so lets get the gov.out of it and get
it over in my opion the gov.is bogging this down. Give them their
settlement and get it over. It s just the thing that might start
turning the economy around.
MTC-00011136
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although I don t believe Microsoft should have been brought to
trial in the first place I believe the settlement agreement is fair
and equitable and should be accepted ASAP.
MTC-00011137
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While it is my opinion that the entire basis of the suit was
without cause the process has brought us all to this point and it is
from here that we must proceed. It is imperative that the settlement
be made final and that all parties are made to abide by the terms
thereof. The use of the court system to stymie one s competitors is
reprehensible. The production of competitive goods is the proper
response. I ask that the settlement be enforced and that all
attempts to subvert the course of this final justice be denied. In
the vernacular of the day Microsoft s competitors can put up or shut
up and quit whining like children at a toy store. Thank you.
MTC-00011138
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I may be a user at the end of the entelectual chain but if it
were not for Micro soft I may not even be connected to the chain .
Just because someone wants what others have is no reason to take
that which one has accomplished and give it to he who has not earned
it. Get on with it! Thank you for all your hard work on this issue.
Respsctfully
Rev. Ernest D. Matties thg.
MTC-00011139
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Justice Departments frivolous anti-trust suit and the
competitors envious vendetta against Microsoft is pro-longed and
frivolous. Microsoft is an innovative firm that should be commended
for it s success in research and development and marketing. It is an
example of American free enterprise all around the world and to
condemn its achievements only diminishes what America stands for. It
is the choice of the consumers to buy and use the MS software and
government should stay out of it s production. Stop wasting taxpayer
money and spend it on more serious issues in California and the
nation. The Department of Justice and the California State Attorney
General should not continue to jeopardize the economy and future of
technology.
MTC-00011140
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am delighted my government finally behaved in a way
commensurate with business opportunities and good business sense in
settling the claim with Microsoft. I feel this giant of a company
has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt how important they are to the
well being of America and a prosperous American future. Thank you.
MTC-00011142
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with this settlement arrangement.--Laurene McQuay
Information Technology Consultant
GBMC www.gbmc.org
MTC-00011143
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For the time been although not yet clearly and/or fully
satisfied to the masses specially Microsoft competitors the mear
fact that our legal system team is involved the media exposure
industry people and those who care to know and have become aware of
such litigation court preceding and final agreement this primary
settlement should be carry out. Should Microsoft ever fail to
maintain its agreement then the Court shall have evry excuse to
excecute a much tougher ruling and perphaphs the break up of
Microsoft.
By the fact that all the attornyes general of all the states
(The Govertment representatives) have all agreed on this deal and in
order not to reduce the great technology leadership of Microsoft not
only in the United States of America but the world their market
share and exposure its competitors must not only think of themselves
and their bottom lines (Dollars) but how conjunctevely can create a
better fairer and more advantegious platform for all to work in and
therefore continue providing the local and foreign markets with
their great selection of products while at the same time maintaining
Microsoft under a microscope so that the big M does not violate
competetive laws and/or agreements.
MTC-00011144
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop the assault on Microsoft and the freedom to
innovate. To whom it may concern As an employee of Microsoft I can
ASSURE you that technology is in its INFANCY. This is not the time
or era to try and legislate innovation. The world and the technology
industries are many many many years from true infrastructures on
which to build the future. If we don t give key players
[[Page 25412]]
like
Microsoft room to innovate the future will be a long time coming.
Your behavior and actions affect all companies who desire to serve
customer demand and enhance our world. Get off Microsoft s back and
out of legislating the technology industries. Come back in 50 years
when we have true solid technologies that may require government
regulation. Now is NOT the time for this. Thank you for listening.
MTC-00011145
From: Mike Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been involved in the computer industry in one way or the
other for nearly thirty years and would like to comment on the
proposed DOJ-Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
The whole purpose of anti-trust laws is to ensure competition
and innovation so that like natural selection inferior products will
die out and superior ones will thrive. I have observed with
disbelief over the past ten years or so how the most inferior
operating system (OS) that I have ever dealt with as a software
developer has gained such a market share. When I tell friends that
on most OS's computers do not ``crash'' or ``lock-up'' they do not
believe me because they have not been exposed to alternative OS's
(UNIX, LINUX, etc.) Granted that most of Windows initial success was
due to its ease of use as opposed to other OS's this is certainly no
longer the case and I fear that consumers will never get the chance
to find something better if the proposed settlement is allowed to go
forward. It is absolutely imperative that Microsoft allow all third
party developers access to the Windows source code in order to
create cross-platform alternatives to their software products and to
allow direct competition with their own software products (Office,
etc.) Microsoft should also be compelled to continue to support the
JAVA platform since there is so much JAVA content currently on the
internet. Failure to do so unfairly denies consumers the use of that
content and is an attempt by Microsoft to stymie the JAVA juggernaut
which is in direct opposition and competition to their own .NET
platform.
Finally I would like to comment that I feel the only reason this
settlement proposal came about in the first place was due to
``economic expedience.'' Following the September 11 attacks I think
the DOJ felt it in the best short-term interest of the country to
soften their position and cave in to Microsoft who from all accounts
had been intransigent in previous settlement negotiations. Opposed
to popular opinion, the computer industry will not collapse if
Microsoft justly loses market share to its competitors. Please do
the right thing and protect the millions of consumers who currently
have no idea that there is something better out there.
Michael F. Morris
Professional Software Developer
MTC-00011146
From: Jaideep Mirchandani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 11:45am
Subject: Case
Dear Officials,
I would like to register my deep opposition to the proposed
settlement. Microsoft is a monopoly by any reasonable standards. The
settlement does nothing to take away this status from Microsoft.
Jaideep Mirchandani
MTC-00011147
From: Peter Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 6:40am
Subject: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
Having read the relevant documents, I am persuaded that the U.
S. Government has caved in to special interests. This is
particularly distressing, since it coincided with the recent change
in federal administration.
Puteracy is a new medium. America is playing a world wide role
in defining its parameters. It would be a disgrace if we were to
stifle competition at this early stage.
Microsoft must not be allowed to bully the American people, or
the world.
Yours truly,
Peter Hodgson
[Emeritus Professor]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011148
From: Clive Taylor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clive Taylor
431 Pebblebrook Dr.
El Lago, TX 77586-6012
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Respectfully,
Clive R. Taylor
MTC-00011149
From: Cecily Wood
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/14/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft's preditory ways
I wrote earlier protesting the school aspects of the settlement,
which have now been nixed, thank goodness. However that message was
based upon public concern. Now, however, my own ox has been gored,
as it were, and I am speaking as a victim of Microsoft's monopoly. I
have just been informed that as a ComCast cable user being
transitioned to @comcast.net from @home (after all the Excite-ment),
I HAVE to use Microsoft IE (which is not so bad but removes all
choice) and OE for mail. This makes me madder than I have been in a
long time. Why should I HAVE to use the most bug ridden major vector
for viruses as my only access for email?
I have a Macintosh computer. I made a choice not to be bound by
Microsoft, and yet now I am being FORCED to use their browser and
their virus menaced email product. Use of Outlook Express means not
only that my computer is vulnerable to Mac viruses it was not
before, but that I can become a Typhoid Mary, infecting other
machines with PC viruses that won't effect my machine, but which get
passed along to people I send messages to. I have checked with
Netscape and they say yes indeed, Microsoft's use in servers by
ComCast leaves me no option because it is requiring a proprietary
``handshake'' protocol which is not open source-- for both the
browser and the mail portions. I can't use Netscape, nor Eudora, nor
Opera or any other alternative.
ComCast/AT&T is now one of the largest cable ISPs, so that
entire large market is being brought under Microsoft's exclusive
domination, with absolutely NO choice, no matter whether users are
capable of downloading and installing alternative software--
something vastly easier on a Mac than a Windows machine.
This is, of course one of the original reasons suit was brought
against Microsoft. It seems to me that if they were negotiating in
good faith, this proprietary handshake would have been altered to
accept internet standards by now. This only further serves to point
out that they have no intention of altering the business methods
that made them a monopoly, that the current settlement is a mere
slap on the wrist, and that they must be monitored extremely closely
for compliance, once the settlement is set.
Sincerely, Cecily Wood (cecnralph@home in transition to
[email protected])
CC:Cecily Wood,Cecily Wood
MTC-00011150
From: fleur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft security
We are regularly assured that our internet security is sound,
but we are equally regularly warned that our pc's are subjected to
newer threats of invasion from unwanted
[[Page 25413]]
sources which, we are told,
are even dangerous. The need for regular assurances of security is
itself indicative that the opposite might equally be true.
Is Microsoft scareing us into being its minions. Let's have more
competitionafter the spirit of true capitalistic principles. Hey?
MTC-00011151
From: David Chancogne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To whom it may concern,
I share the view of the Senate Judiciary Committee's bipartisan
leadership that while I would have welcomed a settlement that
addressed the numerous Sherman Act violations that were found by the
District Court and upheld unanimously by the DC Circuit Court, the
DOJ settlement falls far short of that goal. I'm concerned that the
settlement will do little to change Microsoft's behavior or restore
competition.
This is bolstered by the decision of the nine state plaintiffs
to press on with their case to pursue a far more effective
resolution. In particular, the proposed final judgment:
* Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that
Microsoft was found to have illegally protected;
* Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology
community;
* Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
* Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
* Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because
it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
Sincerely,
David Chancogne
MTC-00011152
From: nancy hammond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
January 14, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
Please continue forth with the proposed Microsoft settlement
agreement as it is fair to all consumers and properly punishes
Microsoft for any wrong doing they may have unknowingly caused.
Sincerely,
N Hammond
25959 SE 39th Pl
Issaquah WA 98029
MTC-00011153
From: John Anger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Any settlement which allows Microsoft to pay through the free
use of its products is not a penalty at all. It is a reward.
Software does not have a cost like a physical product and the more
copies that are in use allow Microsoft to continue its monopolistic
dominance in many many markets. Penalties should be paid with CASH.
It is the only stick which will get Microsoft's attention. Don't let
them dupe you into anything else.
These are my views only and do not represent my employer.
John Anger
Alterna Technologies Group
Suite 200, 5970 Center St. SE
Calgary, AB T2H-0C1
Work: +1.403.692.2203
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00011154
From: Glenn Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Hello:
One of the central issues promoted by Microsoft (MS) in this
case has been to protect their ability to innovate. In my opinion,
that issue is a carefully constucted red herring. The critical issue
of importance to our competitive system is protection of ``everyones
ability to innovate and compete''. ``Everyone'' in this current
court case includes not only MS, but also their competitors, past,
present and future. I believe that the issue of protecting everyones
ability to innovate has been under appreciated, at least in part,
because the major voices in the trial and associated hearings have
been MS and their surviving competitors. The past MS competitors
that have been driven into extinction by the anticompetitive
behavior of MS are largely unheard from. When they are heard from
their words obviously carry less weight than they would if they came
from a source with more business and financial resources. Many of
the current competitors have to be careful to speak misleadingly
softly so as to not to aggrevate MS. After all, they often are, to a
major extent, dependent on ongoing business releations with MS.
Finally, the ranks of future competitors are, and will continue to
be, diminished by the awesome and legally-proven ability of MS to
crush competiton by means both fair and foul.
I believe that the eventual settlement should focus to a minor
extent on protecting the ability of MS to innovate. MS obviously has
the resources to look out for itself, even without its near total
mopnopoly in desktop operating systems. Instead, the settlement
should focus on protecting the ability of its competitors to
innovate, and hence to compete.
Remember, if the US government hadn't protected the ability of
MS to innovate and compete through its restraint of IBM, MS would
certainly not be such a powerful anticompetitive force today. What
other successful companies and innovative products might there be in
the information technology world today if MS had been similary
restrained over the past 15 or so years? Although we can't redo the
past, we can work to protect innovation for all in the future. What
ever remedies are instituted to protect innovation, if they depend
in any respect on the good nature and good will of the ``biggest
bully on the block'' who has repeatedly broken federal law in
crushing innovation by competitors, then those remedies are doomed
to failure.
If the US refuses to break up MS into 2 or more independent
pieces, then the eventual remedies should be designed to coming as
close as possible to such
an outcome in both law and spirit. Such a settlement would come much
closer to being self-governing than the current proposed settlement.
Respectfully, Glenn E Brown
14 January 2002
MTC-00011155
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hey,
When Microsoft released J++, I knew that it did not conform to
the Java standard and would only trick unwary devlopers and managers
by using Microsoft's extensions. As soon as you start using a
nonstandard solution, you are completely dependent on that provider.
As much as Microsoft has added to the whole of computing and that
addition is generally good, do not allow that addition to become the
only voice that is heard as a result of its previous success. I
think that the Microsoft should be broken into seperate business
units and restrained from engaging in unfair business practices.
Eric Devlin
Senior Software Engineer
KnowX
404 541 0251
[email protected]
MTC-00011156
From: Robert E. Timlin, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am writing as a concerned consumer to comment on, and indeed
protest the proposed settlement - the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment--between the United States Department of Justice (along
with the nine states party to the agreement) and Microsoft
Corporation. Upon review, the terms of the settlement appear wholly
ineffective. There is a complete lack of punishment for Microsoft's
illegal conduct, and thus no effective deterrent against similar
anticompetitive behavior in the future. Also, the agreement takes no
substantive corrective action to repair the harm done to the
marketplace by said conduct. The preventative measures spelled out
in the proposed settlement are also woefully inadequate.
Specifically, it permits Microsoft to continue to control OEMs
through a codified system of rewards, provides a glaring loophole to
allow the company to avoid disclosing Middleware APIs, explicitly
allows anticompetitive agreements, and perhaps worst of all
completely fails to address Microsoft's use of its Office product to
coerce Apple Computer, which the Appellate Court specifically ruled
was a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Furthermore, the
Enforcement provisions of the agreement can best be described as
``toothless'', offering no means to address willful violations by
Microsoft other than going back to court, and even then the terms
[[Page 25414]]
significantly handicap the Plaintiff's ability to prosecute said
violations. Enforcement seems to depend entirely on Microsoft
dealing in good faith, something which the trial record alone shows
is a dubious proposition at best. This Revised Proposed Final
Judgment thus completely fails to provide effective relief by the
very criteria set forth in Section IV.B of the associated
Competitive Impact Statement. In short, the settlement serves
neither justice nor the public interest, leaving consumers
completely at the mercy of an abusive monopolist. I urge the court
to reject the agreement out of hand.
First, let's consider the total lack of punitive and corrective
measures in the proposed settlement. Under this agreement, Microsoft
suffers absolutely no consequences for its illegal conduct. There
are no fines, no compensation to those directly harmed, nothing. The
few mild restrictions that are placed on them can hardly be
considered punitive, as most amount to nothing more than
instructions to obey existing law. And since no steps are taken to
undo the competitive harm inflicted on the market by Microsoft, the
settlement thus allows the company to keep the fruits of its
anticompetitive behavior: a near-monopoly on the Web Browser market.
Netscape Communications was effectively destroyed by Microsoft's
actions, and ceased to be competitive in the Browser market once it
was acquired by AOL-Time Warner. The most recent figures I could
find (July 2001) show that Internet Explorer holds an 87% market
share. And Microsoft is even now moving to exploit this dominant
position, reducing support for open standards in the latest versions
for Windows, as well as silently disabling competitor's products
that work with the Browser (e.g. RealPlayer and QuickTime, among
others). Basically, Microsoft accomplished precisely what they set
out to do with their illegal conduct, and this agreement does
nothing to redress that. It is not unlike a bank robber being
caught, tried, and convicted, then allowed to go free and keep the
money he stole! The proposed agreement thus fails completely to act
as any sort of deterrent to future anticompetitive behavior. If
anything, it even encourages such actions by demonstrating that
illegal conduct can be used to achieve business goals without fear
of punishment or reversal. That, in a word, is wrong.
I submit therefore that the actual penalty that is to be imposed
on Microsoft should include forced divestiture of the Internet
Explorer Web Browser, along with a prohibition on purchasing or
developing anything to replace it. This simultaneously punishes
Microsoft, denies them the benefits of their anticompetitive
actions, and levels the playing field for all Browser vendors,
restoring competition (thus preventing the Internet from becoming
merely an extension of the Windows monopoly). Divestiture would also
act as a serious deterrent to future illegal conduct, thus
addressing some of the gravest shortcomings of the proposed
settlement.
Next, I would like to look at some of the key preventative
measures that the proposed settlement spells out, highlighting
several glaring flaws that render them ineffectual, or worse. These
flaws take the form of obvious loopholes, outright omissions, or
even explicit sanctioning of actions that have the same impact as
the anticompetitive behavior that the agreement is supposed to stop!
Consider first Section III.A, which prohibits retaliation against
OEMs for a number of activities. A good provision, but it is made
pointless by its final paragraph which permits Microsoft to grant
Consideration to OEMs based on their level of commitment to
Microsoft's products or services. Instead of punishing those that do
not bow to their wishes, the agreement expressly allows the company
to reward those who do. The net effect is the same.
Similarly, Section III.B mandates uniform licensing terms, thus
preventing Microsoft from using discriminatory licensing to enforce
its will. But III.B.3 completely undermines that by permitting
discounts, programs, and market development allowances, the only
requirement being that they be offered uniformly. This merely
codifies a system of rewards for OEMs who toe the Microsoft line.
Given the realities of the Personal Computer industry (razor-thin
margins, falling sales, layoffs), every OEM is therefore highly
motivated to take advantage of whatever discounts or Considerations
that are made available. Few, if any, would willingly make the
choice to incur higher costs by foregoing these benefits to go with
products from Microsoft's competitors. The same goal is achieved as
with discriminatory licensing.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that it simply defies
common sense to explicitly permit market development allowances for
an established monopoly. Any product that Microsoft chooses to
bundle with a Windows Operating System Product automatically has
access to more than 90% of the market. This is an enormous inherent
advantage. The only purpose of any market development allowances
would be to absolutely foreclose the possibility of competition.
Permitting them in an agreement to settle an antitrust matter is
absurd in the extreme. Sections III.A and III.B thus start out as
excellent measures, but the exceptions spelled out render them not
only ineffective, but actually worse than doing nothing at all.
Their end result would be Court-sanctioned anticompetitive
practices. These provisions merely substitute positive reinforcement
for punishment. It's the difference between giving your dog a
biscuit and hitting him with a rolled-up newspaper; both methods
serve to control his behavior. I believe that the Competitive Impact
Statement's assertion that uniformly offered incentives will not
discourage OEMs from favoring, promoting, or shipping products from
Microsoft's competitors is incredibly naive and demonstrates a
profound lack of understanding of the Personal Computer industry.
For these two measures to yield effective relief, I submit that the
final paragraph of Section III.A and all of Section III.B.3 should
either be removed entirely, or be re-written to expressly forbid
what they allow in their present form. Further, I suggest that
Microsoft be compelled to provide versions of Windows Operating
System Products without bundled Microsoft Middleware. (The Competitive
Impact Statement does note that this was considered but not pursued,
but I urge it be re-examined.) These Windows versions would be
available at a discount commensurate with the subsequent cost for
OEMs to then include the Middleware of their choosing, be it from
Microsoft or a third party. There would therefore be no cost penalty
incurred by OEMs for selecting Non-Microsoft Middleware, and hence
no built-in rewards for using Microsoft Middleware. The unfair
advantage of the Windows monopoly would thus be greatly reduced.
Other provisions of the proposed settlement that cause me
concern are Sections III.D and III.E, which mandate the disclosure
of the APIs used by Microsoft Middleware and Communications
Protocols used by Windows Operating System Products. By themselves,
these seem like excellent ideas which would give third party
developers the same access to core features of Windows that
Microsoft's own programmer's enjoy, thereby further leveling the
playing field. (The only obvious shortcoming is the 9-12 month time
frame specified; that is a long time in the Personal Computer
industry, at least for companies without monopoly power, so for
maximum efficacy the disclosures should be required to happen much
sooner.) However, Section III.J.1 provides an inviting loophole to
circumvent these measures. III.J.1 states that Microsoft is not
required to disclose APIs, Documentation, or Communications
Protocols if doing so would compromise the security of a particular
installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus,
software licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or
authentication systems.
On the surface, this seems reasonable. But one need only look at
Microsoft's antitrust history to see how this represents a blueprint
for defeating the provisions of Sections III.D and III.E. Microsoft
blatantly violated the spirit of the last Consent Decree with the
DOJ by artificially integrating the Internet Explorer Web Browser
with the Windows Operating System. This act of technical artifice
exploited a serious loophole in the wording of the Consent Decree,
rendering it ineffective and meaningless. Microsoft makes no
apologies for this action and in fact maintains they did nothing
wrong. Thus there is every reason to believe they would make use of
such tactics again if afforded the opportunity (particularly given
how successful they were). Section III.J.1 of the proposed
settlement gives them that opportunity. By taking essential
Middleware APIs and key Communications Protocols and artificially
grafting in even basic anti-piracy, anti-virus, etc. features,
Microsoft could then refuse to divulge said APIs and Protocols under
III.J.1, claiming it would compromise security. Third party
developers would thus continue to be denied critical information
they need to effectively compete, and Sections III.D and III.E of
the proposed agreement would be completely circumvented.
To reiterate, the Section III.J.1 loophole is simply an obvious
application of the same
[[Page 25415]]
technique that Microsoft used with great
success to defeat the previous Consent Decree. III.J.1 seems
designed specifically to permit such an exploit. While the
Competitive Impact Statement maintains that III.J.1 cannot be used
to withhold inherent functionality, there is nothing in the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment itself that would prohibit Microsoft from
doing so. I submit that in order for the provisions of Sections
III.D and III.E to be effective, Section III.J.1 should be removed
entirely, or at minimum extensively modified (for example, including
the above referenced language from the Competitive Impact Statement)
to specifically guard against the integration trick. Otherwise,
history would probably repeat itself.
Still another problematic provision of the settlement is Section
III.G.1. Again, it starts out very good, prohibiting Microsoft from
striking deals with IAPs, ICPs, ISVs, IHVs, or OEMs requiring
exclusive or fixed-percentage distribution, promotion, use, or
support of Microsoft Platform Software. But as with so many of the
other restrictions, an exception is included that permits
anticompetitive behavior to continue unabated. Microsoft is still
allowed to make agreements to require use, distribution, etc. of its
software in a fixed percentage if it is ``commercially practicable''
for the IAP, ICP, etc. in question to use, distribute, etc.
competing software in an equal or greater amount. The Competitive
Impact Statement does a reasonable job of explaining how this
limited exception cannot be used to exclusionary ends, but the
argument breaks down completely if there is more than one competitor
to Microsoft. For example, in the streaming media market, there are
three major competing formats: QuickTime, RealPlayer, and Windows
Media. Consider an extremely popular news Web site (an ICP) that
might provide content in the QuickTime and RealPlayer formats. Under
Section III.G.1 Microsoft could make an agreement with this ICP to
provide content only in Windows Media and QuickTime. The terms of
III.G.1 would be completely satisfied, as a competitor's product
would still be used in equal proportion to Microsoft's, and yet such
a deal is clearly exclusionary, removing RealPlayer from
competition. As written, Section III.G.1 explicitly allows
anticompetitive behavior, giving Microsoft the power to decide which
competitors would be eliminated and which would be permitted to
survive. Even worse, Microsoft could structure deals with multiple
IAPs, ICPs, etc. to fragment a market, choosing a different
competitor to keep at each entity, but keeping its own products in
universal use, distribution, etc. Network effects would guarantee
the Microsoft offerings dominance and potentially extinguish all of
the competitors. Obviously, for Section III.G.1 to have any real
meaning, the exception must be removed. There are far too many ways
Microsoft can exploit the permitted agreements to anticompetitive
ends. A monopoly should not be allowed to use its monopoly profits
and power to simply buy widespread acceptance of its products or
services.
Perhaps the most egregious failing of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment is that it completely ignores a specific violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act as upheld by the Appellate Court:
Microsoft's use of their Office product as a ``club'' to force Apple
Computer to adopt Internet Explorer as the preferred Web Browser
(see Section II.B.4 of the Appellate Court ruling). In fact, given
the definitions in Section VI of the agreement, not a single
provision of the entire settlement applies to Microsoft's dealings
with Apple. Apple Computer is not an IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV, or OEM as
defined therein. It might be argued that Apple qualifies as an ISV,
since the company does produce software, but to quote the Appellate
Court in Section II.B.4 of their ruling, ``Apple is vertically
integrated: it makes both software (including an operating system,
Mac OS), and hardware (the Macintosh line of computers).'' The Court
addressed Apple Computer completely separate from ISVs (as well as
OEMs and the rest), thus it is reasonable to assume that in the
Court's eyes Apple is not considered an ISV. Which means this
proposed settlement leaves Apple Computer wide open to further
abuses at the hands of Microsoft, especially where the Office
product is concerned. This alone renders the agreement inadequate,
without even considering the myriad other problems, as it fails
completely to ``avoid a recurrence of the violation'' (to quote
Section IV.B of the Competitive Impact Statement).
Microsoft Office is essentially a monopoly product in the office
productivity space. It holds well over 90% market share, and as such
is an essential software product on both Macintosh and Windows
platforms. Indeed, it is a critical product for the continued
survival of Apple's Macintosh line of computers. Even today with
Apple's improved financial condition, Microsoft could effectively
kill the company by cancelling Office for Macintosh. Office
represents a gun pointed at Apple's head, and in fact Microsoft has
used this threat not just once, but twice. (The first time the
ultimatum was for Apple to license certain interface elements or
face cancellation of the Word and Excel software packages, the
precursors of Office. Apple was forced to agree to terms that paved
the way for Windows to duplicate many elements of the Macintosh User
Interface, without Microsoft having to pay royalties.) But even
though this coercion has now been explicitly ruled to be illegal,
the proposed settlement ignores that fact and leaves Microsoft free
to use the tactic again. It would therefore be impossible for the
Macintosh platform to compete as vigorously as it might against
Windows because Microsoft can destroy it at will if they decide that
Apple is becoming too much of a problem. The situation is even worse
now that Internet Explorer has a virtual lock on the Web Browser
market, because Microsoft can now threaten to cancel Explorer for
Macintosh to extract concessions from Apple. The result would be
nearly the same as with Office: the extermination of the Macintosh
platform. Explorer is rapidly becoming a knife at Apple's throat to
go with the Office gun pointed in its face. I submit therefore that
appropriate relief in this matter is to remove these weapons from
Microsoft's hands. (If someone commits a crime with a gun, the first
thing you do is take away the
gun.) Divestiture of the Office product line would accomplish this,
but may or may not be practical.
(As stated previously, I believe that Internet Explorer should
be divested; this is more feasible considering Microsoft generates
no revenue from the product, whereas Office produces a large portion
of the company's income.) In lieu of divestiture, a series of
restrictions must be placed on Microsoft to ensure they do not abuse
the Office product. First, they should be required to produce
competitive and compatible versions of Office for Macintosh as long
as Apple continues producing computers. The ``competitive and
compatible'' stipulation is necessary to preclude Microsoft from
creating deliberately inferior or crippled versions of the product,
and to ensure interoperability with the Windows version. (This is
hardly onerous, considering that Office for Macintosh is a
profitable product; this simply prevents its use as a tool of
coercion against Apple.) Second, Microsoft should be required to
commission under reasonable licensing terms a competitive and
compatible port of the Office product to the Linux Operating System.
This would remove one of the highest barriers that Microsoft has
erected to keep Linux from competing with Windows, as lack of a
native version of Office effectively denies Linux access to vast
portions of the Personal Computer market. (Again, this does not
represent a burden to the company, as Microsoft would not have to do
the work, and stands to reap considerable profits from each copy of
Office for Linux that would be sold.) Third, similar to the terms of
Section III.D of the proposed settlement, Microsoft should be
required to disclose and document all of the APIs used by the Office
software to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.
This would help promote competition in the office productivity space
by leveling the playing field for all developers. Finally, to that
same end, and perhaps most importantly, Microsoft should be required
to disclose and document all file formats used by the Office
software, making them freely available for anyone to use in their
own products. This alone would go far in removing barriers to
competition, as file compatibility is one of the primary factors
which prevents users from exploring alternatives to Office. Even
without divestiture, these four measures would effectively end the
use of Office both as a weapon of coercion against Apple and as a
tool of monopoly maintenance, as well as encouraging competition in
the office productivity market.
Next, let's examine the provisions for enforcement in Section
IV. As with the rest of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, there
are some good points, but serious flaws and omissions overshadow
them. Foremost among these are the lack of immediate enforcement
authority and prescribed penalties for willful violations. If
Microsoft chooses to engage in anticompetitive conduct prohibited by
this settlement, the only remedies available are voluntary
resolution through the Internal Compliance Officer or through court
action as described in the Competitive Impact Statement. Neither
offers an effective deterrent to violations.
[[Page 25416]]
First, consider the nature of the Internal Compliance Officer;
he or she is to be a Microsoft employee. The factual record of this
case clearly shows that many of Microsoft's anticompetitive policies
originated with senior management, among them Bill Gates himself. If
further such practices were mandated from the top, is it reasonable
to believe that a simple employee who is afforded no protection
whatsoever from retribution by this agreement would dare oppose
them? Furthermore, even if the Compliance Officer chose to make a
stand against such illegal conduct and was not fired on the spot and
replaced with someone more pliable, he or she is granted no real
power to forcibly stop the conduct. The entire idea of voluntary
resolution through a Compliance Officer seems predicated on the
notion that Microsoft actually wants to comply and avoid further
anticompetitive behavior. I believe the record shows this to be a
naive and dangerous assumption.
Microsoft willfully and blatantly violated the spirit (if not
the letter) of the first Consent Decree with the DOJ. The company
has lied to its developers and customers, coerced competitors, and
bullied its partners. During the trial in District Court, Microsoft
repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the proceedings and indeed the
very notion that the Law has any say whatsoever over its business
practices. The company was even caught falsifying evidence in
Federal Court! As the trial went badly, Microsoft turned to public
relations firms to write fake letters of support in an attempt to
create the illusion of broad grass-roots backing for the company's
position, the idea being to manipulate public opinion to influence
the outcome of the trial. At one point they even stooped to sending
letters in the names of deceased individuals! And obviously the
tactic has not been forgotten, for recently it was discovered that
Microsoft had submitted falsified testimonial letters to the
European Union commission currently investigating alleged
anticompetitive abuses by the company. And Microsoft continues to
misrepresent facts in the matter at hand, failing to disclose
lobbying activity related to this proposed settlement in its APPA
filing, when extensive lobbying by the company has been amply
documented in the media! To this day Microsoft remains unrepentant
and denies that its actions were wrong, despite the findings that
were upheld by the Appellate Court. Given this record of dishonesty,
disregard for the Law, and utter lack of remorse, it seems
completely unreasonable to now simply trust that Microsoft will
police itself, or even believe that it in fact has any desire to do
so.
That leaves court action brought by the Plaintiffs to address
willful violations of the settlement. This has proved ineffective in
the past, as the case of the original Consent Decree between
Microsoft and the DOJ shows. Even when threatened with the
unprecedented fine of one million dollars per day, the company was
not cowed (unsurprising since their monopoly generates billions of
dollars in profits each quarter). Plus, the company escaped
punishment for their violation of the Decree completely upon appeal.
Thus the threat of court action, with its attendant process of
appeals and likelihood of only fines being imposed even if
prosecution is successful, does not act as a deterrent against
willful disregard of the provisions of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment. Appeals can drag the enforcement proceedings out long
enough for anticompetitive acts to achieve their ends, and as
before, any potential fine is likely to be insignificant compared to
the sheer size of monopoly profits (not to mention Microsoft's
staggering cash holdings, which presently amount to roughly $36
billion and counting).
What is required to ensure voluntary compliance on Microsoft's
part is an independent, external authority with the power to
immediately act to remedy violations, triggering the imposition of
prescribed penalties severe enough to make the company fear them.
The Technical Committee as established by Section IV.B of the
proposed settlement could be such a body, but the agreement fails to
give it the necessary enforcement powers. The TC is limited to
working through the Internal Compliance Officer or referring the
matter to the Plaintiffs to pursue through the courts, both of which
are likely to be of dubious value, as outlined above. Furthermore,
Section IV.D.4.d makes even court action difficult by prohibiting
the TC from either testifying or submitting evidence in any
enforcement proceedings. This restriction seems wholly unreasonable
as it only serves to further prevent expeditious enforcement. The
Competitive Impact Statement notes that the TC can provide
information to the Plaintiffs upon which to base an enforcement
investigation, but why mandate such extra steps when the TC can
directly verify non-compliance for the Court? This makes no sense,
and would only serve to prolong the duration of any violations. At
minimum, IV.D.4.d should be removed. (Note that this would not
compromise confidentiality of materials obtained by the TC, as this
is specified separately.) Ideally, since time is critical in
addressing any anticompetitive behavior, the TC should be empowered
to immediately invoke harsh penalties, either directly or via the
Plaintiffs, to stop willful non-compliance. These penalties should
be prescribed in advance and severe enough to nullify and reverse
any advantage that might be gained by illegal conduct. This might
include forced divestiture of products, or perhaps forced disclosure
of the source code for the Windows Operating System. The point being
that Microsoft would actually fear punishment, and find it in their
best interests to comply rather than continue their anticompetitive
ways.
Lastly, the final major problem with the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment is found in Section V. The specified five-year duration of
the agreement is far too short for conduct remedies (even the more
far-reaching ones that I have suggested) to fully restore
competitive conditions to the marketplace. While the Personal
Computer industry is rapidly evolving, Microsoft is a thoroughly
entrenched monopoly, and five years represents at best two major
upgrade cycles. It is a short enough time that the company can
simply ``wait it out'' (as they have managed to do thus far during
the four-year course of these antitrust proceedings) and still
wield monopoly power when the restrictions expire. I submit that
the conduct remedies should remain in force for a period of ten
years. This would allow ample time for competition to flourish and
make it nearly impossible for Microsoft to simply bide its time
waiting for the Judgment's expiration. Also, the Plaintiffs should
be entitled to seek multiple extensions to the term of enforcement
so long as there is evidence of willful, systematic violations of the
agreement
(or associated illegal conduct), rather than the one-time extension
stipulated in Section V.B. Again, this is to prevent Microsoft from
simply ``running out the clock'' so it could continue with
anticompetitive behavior unhindered.
In conclusion, I believe it to be abundantly clear that the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment would be completely ineffective in
restraining and redressing Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
What good provisions there are have been rendered impotent by
loopholes and exceptions. This agreement is a failure by the DOJ's
own criteria as presented in Section IV.B of the Competitive Impact
Statement: (1) it does not end the unlawful conduct (and in some
cases officially sanctions alternate forms of it); (2) fails to
prevent recurrence of violations (especially regarding the coercion
of Apple Computer); and (3) does absolutely nothing to undo the
anticompetitive consequences, in particular leaving Microsoft in
control of the Web Browser market, control obtained through largely
illegal means (as upheld by the Appellate Court). Furthermore, the
enforcement provisions are weak at best, completely devoid of
meaningful penalties for continued anticompetitive acts. Enforcement
seems to hinge entirely on the good faith of a company that has
repeatedly demonstrated untrustworthiness. Quite simply, under this
proposed settlement Microsoft faces no punishment for its past
crimes and no deterrent to future ones.
In order to provide effective relief to the marketplace, I urge
consideration of the suggestions that I have submitted in this
commentary.
I believe the additional measures and elimination of exceptions
and loopholes in the proposed settlement fall well within the scope
of the Appellate Court's ruling, and would more successfully undo
the harm inflicted by Microsoft's actions, prevent further
violations, and restore competition. Even though it is probable that
additional, lengthy litigation would be required, the time and
effort to ensure appropriate remedies is more than warranted. A
quick but ineffective settlement such as the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment accomplishes nothing and leaves one of our most important
industries trapped beneath the heel of an abusive monopolist.
For the record, I would like to state that I am not employed in
the Personal Computer sector and am in no way affiliated with
Microsoft or any of its competitors. I have no axe to grind. I do
follow the industry though, as computers have been a hobby of mine
for nearly 20 years. I work in higher education and manage the
computer systems for my department. These consist of a variety of
[[Page 25417]]
platforms including Windows, Macintosh, Linux, and Unix. Based on my
personal experience, almost without exception I would never
willingly choose to use any Microsoft product. Yet I am frequently
forced to, directly or indirectly because of their monopoly power.
As a consumer I am denied choice. This is the harm that is at the
core of this case. Now that Microsoft stands convicted of the
anticompetitive tactics it has employed for so long, there is the
opportunity to pursue potent remedies to restore competition and
choice to the marketplace, allowing innovation to flourish. If
instead the Department of Justice chooses to proceed with this
completely ineffective settlement, then nothing will change and the
DOJ will have failed in its duty to the American people.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert E. Timlin, Jr.
P.S. Please note that I have also faxed a copy of this document.
This electronic version is provided for your convenience.
MTC-00011157
From: Brian Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Letter 1-14-02.pdf>>
Management Concepts, Inc.
Business Computer Systems--Software Solutions
2229 s. Oneida Street Green Bay, WI 54324-8135 OFFICE: (920) 494-
4949
PO Box 28135 Website: www.mcigb.com FAX: (920) 497-4850
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am concerned about the status of the settlement recently
agreed to by Microsoft and the Justice Department. Your decision to
settle the matter is admirable and it is unfortunate that certain
adversaries of Microsoft are trying to cause problems for it. After
all, the settlement gives Microsoft's opponents everything they
could have ever hoped for (and some...) without actually breaking up
the company. Everyone wins in this scenario.
Microsoft grew to its great size and magnitude because of the
seamless operating system it developed and subsequent demand for its
products. Yes, it grew to be a huge corporation, but if you recall,
its inception was in a garage. It did nothing illegal to achieve its
premiere status, as its competitors accuse.
I am most impressed by Microsoft's agreement to share its code
for the Windows operating system with competitors. This is profound
and demonstrates Microsoft's desire to move forward--even though it
really did not have to disclose these secrets. It will also no
longer retaliate against computer makers who ship software that
competes with anything in its Windows operating system--another
measure that will increase competition.
The settlement is fair and is a much better alternative to
breaking Microsoft up. The court should finalize it as soon as
possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brin Lave
Brian Jones
Vice President
Cc: Representative Mark Green
MTC-00011158
From: Partezana, Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To restore competition, forget about breakups and require
Microsoft to license its source code for a set fee. And with
numerous companies selling compatible versions, we might finally see
a leaner and more stable Windows. Microsoft should be required to
publish all the ``hooks'' into their OS at launch, patch, upgrade.
There should be a penalty for each one discovered that have not been
published. Setup a ``bounty'' system for people to find them. First
one to find and post to a web site received a percentage of the fine
for that specific hook.
MTC-00011159
From: Joe Cortale
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am a 20 year software executive who has had the opportunity to
both partner with Microsoft and compete against Microsoft during my
career. As such, I have spent time in Redmond, WA and gotten to know
firsthand both the culture, and Machiavellian management philosophy
that has been a legacy at Microsoft.
In recent days, I have come to know through an ex-colleague some
of the details relating to the Proposed Settlement made by the
Justice Department with Microsoft, and to say the least, I am
displeased by them. This is why I am writing to you today.
Your Honor, how could the Justice Department grant Microsoft a
government-mandated monopoly of the software industry and even
worse--other technology markets? Clearly, this decision would
seriously jeopardize all competitors--both now and in the future.
This decision would clearly violate some basic principals of
Capitalism, such as our right to choose, our right to fair
competition, fair pricing, etc.
In closing, your Honor, I submit to you that like never before
in our Country's history, Microsoft has unequivocally shown itself
to be the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. Their illegal conduct and
activities (bribing & threatening partners and competitors) have
been proven time and time again. I would like to see Microsoft be
brought to justice for the good of our country, our economy, and
most of all--the good of our people. I like millions of other
Americans are counting on you, and counting on justice to prevail.
Respectfully,
Joseph Cortale
Joseph Cortale
Senior Vice President of Sales
[email protected]
Eloquent
2000 Alameda de Las Pulgas
Suite 100
San Mateo CA 94403
Tel: (650) 294-6474
MTC-00011162
From: John Eriksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 12:55pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
I originally sent this mail item (below the line) to Richard
Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connect
[email protected]>. He mailed me back and suggested
that I forward you a copy concerning MY concerns about the Microsoft
settlement. Thanks in advance for your concern and attention. These
are matters that are very important to all americans and have
unfortunately gotten pushed from the publics primary attention by
the events of Sept 11.
As a concerned american... and a very knowledgeable computer
professional... Who uses Microsoft products....
I want to urge you to CONTINUE your efforts to rein in the
behavior of Microsoft in any way possible.
It is hard to express in words how disappointed I am with the
Bush administration and the Dept. of Justice's decision to settle
this case short of its original goals. I want to further state that
after having said these things.... that I am a conservative
republican, who find governmental intrusion into the private sector
offensive.. but in this particular case, it is not only justified,
but damned important for the good of this country. Microsoft is not
ANYONE'S friend. Their goal is become a global corporate entity with
the same influence and power that an autonomous country has... And
nothing short of pro-active intervention on the part of
knowledgeable law enforcement is going to prevent:
(1) The illegal conduct of Microsoft and similar conduct in the
future
(2) To spark competition in the information technology industry
(3) To deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains Microsoft is
attempting to control the global network... one information protocol
at a time. By nothing more intrusive than seemingly benign software
`upgrades'.. all the while... every other computer platform becomes
less capable of communicating efficiently across networks DOMINATED
my Microsoft software...
This `incompatibility' is not an accident on their part.... This
is a planned `feature' of their software.. This being software not
written to do productive work as it primary function, but to ensure
an ever widening sphere of Microsoft dominated networks. Productive
work being it's secondary function.
This `incompatibility by upgrade' must stop. Your efforts must
continue until Microsoft realizes it is not going to be allowed to
force its vision of the future on us any more that Osama Bin Ladin
is.
You're legal efforts have my total ethical and political
support.
MTC-00011163
From: Elbert Hannah
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25418]]
Date: 1/14/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In 1992 I was highly recruited by Microsoft to be on their NT
Beta support team. I was very reluctant and agreed to interview at
the urging of a close friend who worked there.
Throughout the interview process, I questioned whether Microsoft
truly wanted someone like me, since my background was strictly Unix.
And, I hated DOS, and I hated Windows, and I hated all of their
products. They assured me they wanted me badly BECAUSE of my Unix
background... This was during the time when Microsoft touted their
new NT Operating System as Open and POSIX compliant--i.e., they were
ready to play the Open Architecture card.
I accepted their 4th offer...
On Friday of my first week I attended an internal presentation
on the NT POSIX subsystem. The project manager, Margaret (I don't
remember her last name) opened the presentation with the following
remarks: (and I am summarizing here):
Margaret: Before we get started here with the POSIX Subsystem, I
want to make one thing perfectly clear--we have NO interest in this
subsystem... The POSIX subsystem is just a check box so we can
qualify to get government contracts. We don't care about it, we
don't intend to support it, it's just a checkbox.
Then Margaret introduced the ENTIRE POSIX subsystem team, a guy
named Matt!
Afterwards, I called and talked DIRECTLY with Larry Kroger about
what I had heard. I recounted what I had heard and he made no
counter argument. I asked him what I was to tell people asking
questions about the POSIX subsystem on the support forums. Larry
said, ``Tell them we don't support it.'' I asked what I should tell
these people about MS' future plans for the POSIX subsystem. Larry
said, ``Tell them we have none.''
I resigned the following week--forfeiting ``in the door'' stock
options that have since exceeded $3M in profit value.
Thought you'd be interested in MS' behind-closed-door
``policy''. And, if you have any doubts about the authenticity of my
experience, check with MS' HR department about my employment at that
time... Also, the ``presentation'' I described was video-taped, as
were all of their presentations, so the meeting should be preserved
in their libraries.
Elbert Hannah
MTC-00011164
From: Lance Speelmon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lance Speelmon
543 S Magnolia Ct
Bloomington, IN 47403
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lance Speelmon
MTC-00011165
From: Jane Olson
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Olson
2025 Sage Lily Dr
Sidney, MT 59270-5730
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jane Olson
MTC-00011166
From: George Maynor
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Maynor
10201 River Drive
Descanso, Ca 91916
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views. P.S.
Perhaps your time could be better spent bringing the money changers
down to their collective knees. Greenspan keeps lowering the
interest rate to the money changers but real relief to the people in
the form of lower interest rates on consumer loans is nowhere in
sight. Don't you think it's about time to help the very people who
elect you?
Sincerely,
George E. Maynor
MTC-00011167
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case against Microsoft I believe their last
offer was a good one and feel that its the competition of Microsoft
dragging this settlement on and on. I would like to see the gov.
step in and make these nine states accept this offer.
Thank You
Sam A. Galante
MTC-00011168
From: George Tice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:12am
Subject: Settlement
I feel that the Microsoft case should be settled NOW. It is good
for the people and the economy and should be resolved without
further delay. Thank you
George E. Tice
PO Box 2474
Sedona,AZ 86339
MTC-00011169
From: Ken Smith
[[Page 25419]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand consumers are being encouraged to voice their
opinion about the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I believe that it
is critical for the country to get past this whole mess. The suit
was driven by Microsoft competitors that have failed to compete on
price, performance or features. All they have left is litigation.
It's a sad and disgusting comment on our government that it should
be fooled by such tactics.
Microsoft does more for this county in a week then Sun, Oracle
or AOL do in a year.
MTC-00011170
From: William and Gwen Fisk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is in the interest of the American people and the world
economy to settle the Microsoft antitrust suit.
Our economy needs for this issue to be put behind us. Our
country needs the funds to continue the Anti-terrorism fight, not
litigation costs. Microsoft needs to use their funds to continue
researching and developing technology, not litigation costs.
If the other companies could offer the technology Micrsoft has
developed, you can bet they would have done so. It's sour grapes and
let's move on.
Gwen Fisk
Small business owner
MTC-00011171
From: Karen and Harold Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:18am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT = DISASTER!!
DEAR JUDGE;
MY WIFE AND I ARE BOTH IN THE HIGH TECH INDUSTRY AND HAVE BEEN
FOR OVER 10 YEARS. THE CURRENT PFJ IS SIMPLY A DISASTER. IT IS FULL
OF LOOPHOLES THAT MS HAS ALREADY PROVEN IT IS AN EXPERT AT FINDING
AND USING AGAINST ANY COMPANY THAT THREATENS ITS MONOPOLY.
WORKING WITH THEIR SOFTWARE IS AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE--AND NOW
THEY WANT EVERYONE EVERYWHERE TO BE PART OF .NET. WE DON'T KNOW MUCH
ABOUT THE EXACT LAW IN THIS AREA--BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO US THAT WHAT
MS IS DOING IS WRONG. AND CERTAINLY THE PFJ, WHICH I HAVE READ IN
PARTS, ISN'T GOING TO LIMIT THEIR ABUSIVE TACTICS AT ALL.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR COUNTRY THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WHO HAVE
THE POWER TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND GOOD, DO SO. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT
WILL BE TOUGH TO STAND UP TO MICROSOFT AND THEIR BULLYING TACTICS.
WE JUST PRAY THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE STRENGTH, THE COURAGE AND THE
WISDOM TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN THIS VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
CASE.
PRAYING FOR YOU.
KAREN AND HAROLD WILLIAMS
BRIGHTON, MASS.
MTC-00011172
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I wish to state my views in regard to the recent Microsoft
Settlement. I for one, ( and I believe the majority of the general
public) , am pleased that the Microsoft case has gone to settlement
so we can put this behinds us all and move on. Enough taxpayers
money has been spend on pursuing a company under the assumption that
the consumers will benefit from government legal intervention, when
in fact the consumers have only benefited from Microsoft's products
and innovations.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Campbell
MTC-00011173
From: GEORGE GRANDY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:30am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dearest Judge;
there are five huge problems I see with the PFJ as it currently
stands--and I hope that you will use the power of your good office
to correct these egregious errors before this is made the law of our
good land:
1.Communication Protocols: The Agreement states that Microsoft
must now share information on how its middleware and server software
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute
separate from windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked.
This is a huge loophole, because if Microsoft wants to drive a
competitor out of business, they just attach the specific type of
software the competitor is involved with to their Windows platform.
Once they do that, they do not have to share the coding information
that allows the competitors software to work with Windows, thus
driving the competitor out of business. Once the competitor is out
of business, Microsoft can separate the software from the Windows
package, sell it separately and derive huge margins. In addition,
Microsoft does not have to disclose their information to companies
that in ?their view? do not have a ?viable business?. This loophole
will allow Microsoft to prevent new software start-ups from forming
which, to say the least, is very bad for competition, and therefore,
the consumer.
2. No Penalty For Undisputed Illegal Activity. Microsoft is not
penalized for any past misdeeds. In other words, they are being
allowed to retain all the profits gained from their illegal
activities. Every court involved with this case has acknowledged
that Microsoft broke the Anti-trust laws. Through this Agreement,
the Justice Department is sending the message that this sort of
anticompetitive behavior is acceptable. Every large potential
monopolistic company is being told that they can get away with this
sort of illegal behavior without fear of losing any of the gains
made from such conduct. In other words, get away with as much as you
can until the Justice Department brings an action. There is every
incentive for future monopolists to engage in this type of conduct
and no incentive not to.
3. Middleware: As part of the Agreement Microsoft is required to
allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs and
allow them to install icons or links to competing middleware
programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers are not
allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and
delete all the competitor's middleware.
4. The Three-Man Compliance Team. The Agreement requires a
three-man compliance team to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the
Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, the Justice Department
another, and the third will be chosen by the two people already
appointed. This new team will not be allowed to inform the public of
their work, and cannot impose fines. Their sole remedy for
infractions is informing the Justice Department of the infraction
and then the Justice Department will have to commence litigation to
stop the infraction. The Justice Department does not need a
compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is doing something
wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke screen.
5. Market Share. All other businesses in the U.S. market that
have a ninety percent market share are considered per-se monopolies
and are regulated or have some sort of government oversight (i.e.
utilities, local phone companies, cable companies etc.). This is
done because it is in such a company's best interest (in the
interest of their shareholders) to abuse their position. In other
words, to gain maximum shareholder value, they are almost required
to abuse their position. Why is Microsoft allowed a waiver to this
general rule? Does Microsoft not try to gain optimum share value for
their shareholders?
Judge: this agreement looks badly flawed--especially to anyone
that has been in the industry for years and has seen MS again and
again abuse its monopoly powers. I've been a CEO of a number of
small software companies--and am one right now. The PFJ will put
those of us depending on Java in a very precarious position
strategically.
Help make this right. Our entire industry is counting on you.
George Grandy
MTC-00011174
From: todd neighbors
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Gentlemen and Ladies,
I feel that Microsoft has made our lives better through the
innovations they have provided us. I do not understand why some
lawyers want to tell us what is good for us. The technology has
already changed and is moving in a different direction as more and
more people get online. The people that are behind this suit are not
individual consumers. The people that tend to benefit are the AOL's,
Sun Micro, Nokia, AT&T of the world. They all have monopolies in
their own business models. AOl now controls all
[[Page 25420]]
cable tv. They set
the price and what's on. AT&T have not only the phone systems but
also have the platforrm to deliver cable tv and the internet. If you
look at the cost Microsoft charges for it's product it's cheaper
than either AT&T or AOL's products on an annual basis. Who's
providing the better value for the service provided. I don't feel
that Microsoft has overcharged anybody and it's a disgrace to the
public for these politicians who are suing the company for the
betterment of their careers. How come no one sued AOL for the
monoply that they have over cable tv now that they have Time Warner.
Look at what they tried to do to Disney a competitor. This is
another frivolous lawsuit that only benefits the politicians and
hurts the consumer and technology as a whole. Microsoft does not
control an individual's ability to create a product for sale in the
software market.They make it better. Without Windows, the computer
box makers would have been broke years ago. How come no one has
looked into the prices that the box makers charged for their
products. I want Microsoft products because they work.
MTC-00011175
From: Robert Figone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:36am
Our government should concentrate on protecting our companies
and industries like other countries in the world do. Trying to
destroy one of our own companies losses sight of the people that
make up these companies. Individuals with families, raising their
children that will become the future leaders, doctors, workers and
patriots. Our laws should be used to build, not tear down efforts
that create better conditions in our society. Encourage those who
are willing to take the risk, make the extra effort to be successful
not only for themselves but for their many employees as well. Reward
effort, not whiners who are looking for a free ride or someone else
to carry their fair load.
Government should not try to legislate success, only
opportunity!
MTC-00011176
From: mel graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:38am
Subject: microsoft settlement ruling
108 Fairview Avenue
Elrama, PA 15038-
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
The Microsoft Anti Trust case settlement has been a long time
coming. I am very glad to see that there is now a light at the end
of the tunnel. However, I don't see how anyone can even debate the
settlement's fairness. Microsoft is giving up a great deal to end
this lawsuit, going so far as to give their competitors an unfair
edge in the future. Sounds like the ``reverse discrimination''
rulings of the past.
I use Microsoft products both at work and at home. For years
Microsoft has provided American consumers like me with superior
products, creating innovative and compatible technologies useful in
so many areas. Their dedication to making their product user-
friendly created the computer revolution.
Everyone had the same opportunity to ``jump in'' and profit. AND
MANY DID!! Now, with the settlement Microsoft has pledged to share
information, including the internal interfaces for its Windows
operating system, with its competitors and make it easier for people
to install non-Microsoft products in Windows. Doesn't sound like a
just reward for a job well done!!!
The government has more important matters to deal with. It
should not be intervening in the affairs of private companies.
Please uphold the settlement and allow Microsoft to move on with
their business.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Milford Graham
MTC-00011177
From: Johannes Ziegler
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Kollar-Kotally:
I want to express my dissatisfaction with the Proposed Final
Judgement (PFJ) against Microsoft. As a management consultant to
leading companies in the high-tech industry, including AOL (formerly
Netscape), Intuit, and Hewlett-Packard, I have personally witnessed
the damaging and anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft. In several
cases Microsoft forced my clients to make product decisions that
were not in the interest of the consumer, but that were necessary to
avoid open retaliation by Microsoft-- which is in line with what
federal courts have found when they reviewed the Microsoft antitrust
case over the last three years.
Unfortunately, I cannot see, how the PFJ will change this
behavior in the future. On the contrary, by not severely penalizing
Microsoft for past unethical and anticompetitive behavior and not
really curbing the same behavior in the future, this seems like an
encouragement for Microsoft to continue with their way of ``business
as usual''.
So I urge you not to approve the PFJ but to request a judgement
that adequately addresses both the past and the future of
Microsoft's industry-damaging behavior.
Sincerely
Dr. Johannes Ziegler
President and CEO
Synesis Inc.
Phone: +1 650 813 9913
Fax: +1 650 852 9913
www.synesis.com
CC:'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov'
MTC-00011178
From: Brian Grave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:42am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Judge; the proposed deal with MS is a potential disaster for our
industry for a bunch of reasons. but the most obvious one is the
issue of ``bolting.''
The PFJ does not address the issue that fueled consumer
criticism and which gave rise to this antitrust case in 1998:
Microsoft's decision to bind : or "bolt"
: Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system in order
to crush its browser competitor Netscape. This settlement gives
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine
that other products or services which don't have anything to
do with operating a computer are nevertheless part of a
"Windows Operating System product." This creates a new
exemption from parts of antitrust law for Microsoft and would leave
Microsoft free in future versions to bolt financial services, cable
television, or the Internet itself into Windows. This is clearly a
problem--especially for companies like mine that compete with
Microsoft (as well as partner).
I hope you'll help us level the playing field here...it is
desperately needed.
Brian Graves
Boston Mass
MTC-00011179
From: Marcus Grumbles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am happy that the Department of Justice is ready to close its
case against Microsoft. The three-year suit has affected the
computer industry and cost consumers a great deal of money. I feel
that Microsoft, like any other American business, has the right to
conduct its affairs without government intervention.
The proposed settlement is more than fair to the plaintiffs in
the suit and will correct any infractions of which Microsoft may be
guilty. Microsoft will share its Windows operating system with other
computer makers, allowing them to place their own software on it.
Also, Microsoft will agree not to retaliate against companies that
sell, use, or promote non-Microsoft vendors.
It is time to allow Microsoft and the rest of the IT industry to
return to normal. I urge you to see that the proposed settlement
becomes formal. The lawsuit has already been too costly on the
industry and needs speedy resolution.
Sincerely,
Marcus Grumbles
6503 Bluesky Way
Austin, TX 78745 [email protected]
MTC-00011180
From: ken chang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:51am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Judge;
My company works extensively with Java--it is in fact our
lifeblood. what MS has tried to do with Java is beyond belief.
The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft had unlawfully and
intentionally
[[Page 25421]]
deceived Java developers and "polluted"
the Java standard in order to protect its monopoly and defeat
competition.
Yet, the PFJ does not restrict Microsoft's ability to
modify, alter or refuse to support computer industry standards,
including Java, or to engage in campaigns to deceive developers of
rival platforms, middleware or applications software. Indeed,
Microsoft's decision not to distribute Java technologies with
Windows XP, which hurts developers and consumers alike, will be the
shape of things to come under the proposed deal unless the Court
requires Microsoft to continue to distribute Java technologies.
YOu must do something to help Java based companies survive. C is
a 20 year old language that-- if not for the MS monopoly--would have
died a natural death years ago (remember Cobal??).
Let competition reign!!
Dr. Ken Chang
SF, CA.
MTC-00011181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:55am
Subject: Time to stop the political attack upon Microsoft
It is long over do to let all this be done with. Most of my
friends agree this was all done for political reasons. If the former
US Attorney would have spent as much time on terrorist threats
against the USA we might not have had the lose of life on 9/11/01.
What a injustice has been done to all Americans. Stop letting a
group from playing politics and not be concerned for the true
welfare of all US citizens.
MTC-00011182
From: Bobbie Dee Flowers
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bobbie Dee Flowers
418 West 17th Street, Apt #22A
New York, NY 10011-5826
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: Dear Microsoft
Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: The Microsoft trial
squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a
serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mr. Bobbie Dee Flowers
MTC-00011183
From: sergio jimenez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
sergio jimenez
527 2nd steet Brooklyn, ny 11215
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
sergio jimenez
MTC-00011184
From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 1:05am
Subject: Arthur's Counting Troubles
The Microsoft Anti-Trust private and educational settlements
were rejected on the grounds that the amount proposed was far too
low! Who's counting for the government, Enron or Andersen's group?
Add a AOL Time Warner settlement recalculated over one year ago
from their merger (estimated at about $1 billion dollars from Gerald
Levin's figures) and my claim reaches into the billions of dollars
without any others factored into the settlement.
Should we use Arthur Andersen's Accenture Group or another
respected Big 5 accounting firm in order to calculate the right
amount? Can we even trust their CEO after the Enron debacle?
My previous totals, including revenue from Disney, Gary Goldberg
/ SKG Dreamworks, NBC, Sears, IBM, Microsoft without access to
television advertising logs for revenue streams and royalty
calculations is over $1 billion dollars. If the USDOJ gives me legal
authority and a motivated accounting team, I'll direct the team to
the proper TV commercial logs, advertising agency orders, computer
manufacturing records & software license sales. Together we'll
obtain a more accurate settlement figure, for a lasting peace!
Include me in on these discussions. Decisions on my future, and
my money (in the billions of dollars) must be discussed with me, in
person!
The sum owed to me is greater that the total 2002 appraised
value of the NBC Burbank campus and technology! That's why I am not
disappointed to see a full studio audience at the Tonight Show ahead
of me! I don't need to be in the studio audience ... I'll be just as
pleased to own the campus and schedule additional productions at
unused soundstages within NBC! I can hire additional staff and
production workers for new shows, employ more Californians who are
seeking work, and we can all have a great time in entertainment!
Plus we'll contribute more corporate taxes for General Electric to
consider, and help the governments as well!
The USDOJ cannot ignore my email, my legitimate legal rights and
claims. After all, the IRS and other government agencies will
receive their fair share of the settlements as well! Enclosed is a
reminder from the end of 2001, over three weeks ago!
MTC-00011185
From: Julius T. Abadilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Any settlement regarding this dispute will always displease
someone or some other parties because of the magnitude of the
situation. It is better to simply go ahead with the agreed upon
settlement, i.e., give the poorest schools what was originally
agreed upon, let the recipients benefit from this decision now, and
move on.
Because of conflicting ideas in our vast population, there will
always be some parties who will be 'hurt' no matter what the
solution would be. When the new presiding judge proclaimed that she
wants a fast track settlement to this problem, I rejoiced. I felt
the air of leadership and determination to solve the mess once and
for all. In a society like ours, we should always work with the
quickest and best `at that time' solution to out problems,
otherwise, we will be paralysed with trying to find the 'perfect'
solution which is almost always elusive. It is better to achieve
finality now and move on rather than stall the whole process and let
the whole economy suffer.
Let us avoid any more losses and missed opportunities due to
these uncertainties and indecisions. This is the reason we have
leaders and have appointed well-paid decision-makers so that they
can come up with solutions within the confines of the law.
[[Page 25422]]
Let not
the supposedly leaders challenge each others ruling and stall the
process all together. Let us move on.
Thank you,
MTC-00011186
From: Tom Eubank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am a customer of Microsoft. I have been a software developer
for over thirty years and have used Microsoft products for over ten
years. In my opinion, the Justice Department has been used as a pawn
of Microsoft's competitors--to win in the courtroom market share
that they could not win in the marketplace.
In 1991, I attended a developer's conference, hosted by
Microsoft's competitors, at which the head of PC Development for
IBM, and representatives of Borland, Novell, Word Perfect, and
others, appealed to the attendees to unite against Microsoft. In
different, but similar venues, Microsoft promoted the benefits of
their future products--not so much in juxtaposition to the
competition--but within the context of improvements over their own,
then-current products. It is this difference vision that has
enriched Microsoft--along with a significant segment of U.S. economy
and the lives of many U.S. consumers.
For almost fifteen years, I worked for a company that actively
discouraged the use of Microsoft products--primarily due to the
presence of a Vice President of Microsoft's major competitor on its
board. During that time, my employer wasted millions of dollars on
projects that failed in large part due to ill-conceived and faulty
software technologies and products that were chosen as a result of
the anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft competitors.
I have personally encountered multiple products distributed by
major Microsoft competitors that seemed to be designed to impair the
reliability or performance of Microsoft Operating System products.
In summary, over the years, Microsoft has created and published
a large number of high-quality products for sale to the general
public, and has slowly increased market share as a result of the
quality and functionality of those products. During the same period,
it's competitors have sought to gain market share by stifling
competition through their influence in the boardrooms of major
corporations and in the courtrooms of the federal judiciary.
The COMPLAINT and the STIPULATION seem to be designed to benefit
other large companies--some of which seek to restrain Microsoft from
competing with their inferior products and others of which seek to
further extend their dominant presence in other segments of the
information marketplace. Articles 1. through 3. of the STIPULATION
will enable Microsoft's competitors to degrade the user's experience
of Microsoft products by embedding their products into the operating
system. Rather than ensuring a competitive marketplace, the
STIPULATION will impede it by requiring U.S. consumers to use
inferior products.
The prosecution of this COMPLAINT has been a waste of U.S. funds
for the benefit of a few large, under-performing companies; the
enforcement of the STIPULATION would be a further disservice to the
U.S. public.
Regards,
Thomas H. Eubank
Durham, North Carolina
MTC-00011187
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thank God for Bill Gates and Microsoft. I don't think the
Government should have interferred in this matter at all. Look at
where we are as a result of Microsoft Windows. We now can use
computers easily. What a boost the computer industry has been to the
economy for the last 10 years and that is all thanks to the ease in
which the average person can use a computer. If someone can make a
better operating system, then let them and if its good the public
will use it; but I don't need the Government running interference on
this one.
I can think of many more ways the Government can protect me. Try
the banking industry and their unreasonable fees for ATM use or the
oil industry that controls the prices of a commodity that I have to
use daily! A computer is an option--let the Government interfere and
take action on the things in my life that are not optional!
I thought that we lived in a country that embraces capitalism
and free enterprise and rewards people that are innovative--I guess
not in the case of Bill Gates!
MTC-00011189
From: R. Douglas Barbieri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the Microsoft was a paltry settlement which is a
mockery of the antitrust act. You wasted millions of taxpayer
dollars to basically accuse Microsoft of being a monopoly then give
them a slap on the wrist. Having Microsoft donate computers pre-
loaded with Windows to schools only give them an edge in a largely
Mac-dominated arena. What should be required of Microsoft is that
all of their operating system source code should be required to be
turned into open-source under the GPL license, and that said source
code, complete with internal comments and documentation, be released
to the general public.
They should then be required to keep said source code up-to-date
and published. They should also be forced to adhere to open
standards for data formats instead of being allowed to create their
own, closed source versions. Those data formats (Windows Media,
Microsoft Word, etc) help them maintain their monopoly on the world.
By requiring them to play with open standards, we are guaranteed to
be able to view their data formats on any system using non-Microsoft
software.
R. Doulas Barbieri
dougbarbier
MTC-00011190
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ
I believe the settlement proposed by the court is fair and want
this case settled. I disagree with the nine state Attorneys General
who want to continue this case should be denied the forum to do so.
Please settle this case.
Charles Dorsten
936 Burlington Drive
Santa Maria, CA 93455
MTC-00011191
From: Gerard Verbrugge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US goverment,
I look at this issue with a european background and personal
view. I must say that the press and the competitors created a nice
show of this trial but forgot all about what it is about. I myself
am a happy user of Microsoft products and never felt the need to
complain about anything, I do not feel that I pay too much or must
use something that I do not want. There are many ways of competing,
this competing through justice by the so called big companies is
clearly a negative side of the industry.. Also big time lawyers that
try to make a small win in this case (DOJ side) is pethatic.
I say Free Microsoft of all its charges and tell the competitors
to get of their lazy butts and create products that compete instead
of crying....
Kind regards,
Gerard Verbrugge,
the Netherlands
MTC-00011192
From: Walter Paul Bebirian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:51am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Since this and most other ``antitrust'' cases are compared to
Standard Oil--I would recommend that the Standard Oil case be looked
at from the perspective of what was done and just how we as a
country are fairing because of that break-up--It seems that no one--
not one of the states or the government is taking into consideration
that since the beginning of this ``case'' that the economy is the
real injured party every step of the way and because this is so,
every citizen in this country is being negatively effected--My
suggestion is that every single person whether they are in or out of
Microsoft--does not really appreciate the negative effect of this
``action against'' Microsoft--For one brief second--let us imagine
that there is no Microsoft and that there never was one--how much
progress along any lines whether with computers--handhelds--or
Internet-- would we have made--and if you think that Netscape is
innocent--I propose that the investigation truns right around and
looks very deeply at the fact that Netscape was not only behind this
whole case--but that Hearst Publications--a most powerful and
controlling Private Business--has been behind Netscape from the
beginning--So--let us take a quantum leap and figure that 20
[[Page 25423]]
years
down the road--Microsoft is diminished to a small player in both the
operating system category and the browser category-- so what--how
will that have benefited me--I use a Power Mac which runs on an
Apple OS 9 system-- (nothing to do with Microsoft) but let me tell
you one thing--there is no comparison between the Netscape and
Explorer Browsers--the Netscape is no where near as good--
efficient--easy to use or fast as the Explorer--so let's be
truthful--cut out all the double talk and admit that Microsoft is
where it is at because it belongs there--and so I don't agree with
the Mocrosoft Company having to pay any penalty or to be judged
against because it is the thruth that there has been no
investigation as to exactly why any on has complained about
Microsoft and done anything but made a better OS--and if they
haven't it is most probably the case because given the hardware they
have to work with--they can't--so from that perspective-- let's all
sit down--make a better machine and then figure out how to make a
better OS from the beginning of the next generation--
And my dear Department of Justice--friends--if you don't think
that I know what I am talking about-- that's just fine with me--
since anyone who really has the capabilty of designing what I
mentioned above will always be a thousand steps ahead of your
thinking!
Walter Paul Bebirian
http://www.575488trillion.com
MTC-00011193
From: Jacob Dobrinen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Letter
911 N. 107th Street
Seattle, WA 98133-8804
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. Litigation has gone on
for far too long now, and I think the terms of the settlement are
fair and in the best interest of the public and American economy.
A number of the terms of settlement will help give consumer's
freedom to choose products. Microsoft had agreed to design future
Windows versions so that computer makers, software developers, and
consumers can more easily promote their own products from within
Windows' operating systems. Also, I like the fact that Microsoft has
agreed to form a three-person team to monitor compliance with the
settlement. I think the settlement is fair and reasonable and should
suit all parties.
Unfortunately, there are nine states in opposition. I urge your
office to make the settlement a reality. Our country needs American
companies such as Microsoft to be focusing on innovation,
development, implementation and growth. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jacob Dobrinen
MTC-00011194
From: Blomberg David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge
I am relieved that the proposed settlement was thrown out.
Please do us all a favor and sned a message that the Antitrust and
unethical activites of Microsoft will not be tolerated. I ask that
this case continue and that Microsoft be made to pay for its crimes.
I will keep this short
Thank You for hearing me out
David Blomberg
System Engineer
Nihon Libertec Co. LTD
1-34-14 Hatagaya
Shibuya-ku Tokyo
Ph: (03)3481-8321
Fax:(03)3481-8371
MTC-00011195
From: wolfgang manowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:08am
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is time to settle the microsoft anti-trusst suit. DOJ's
proposal is just and in the interest of the electronics consumer.
Lets settle so we all can get on with our lives.
Regards,
Wolfgang Manowski
25 Southridge Way
Daly City, CA 94014
4153335610
wolfm3
MTC-00011196
From: debby hein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please begin 2002 with a reasonable settlement of this case to
benefit all parties concerned...particularly our economy. It's time
to move forward and build a healthy economy through healthy
corporate relationships.
Thank you,
Debby Hein
MTC-00011197
From: tntvideo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear People of the United States of America:
I felt that the word UNITED be part of what is NOW needed.
Enough is enough, can't the states of this country come to the
realization that with the economy in such bad shape that it is today
we need unity! We also need a company such as the likes of Microsoft
to be left alone! It will be a sure bet that the technology sectors
will recover with this company leading the way!
Fed chairman Alan Greenspan has no data and no real answers to
help this country to a new economic recovery! The proof has been
that he has lowered rates last year 11 times and we still have heard
of companies like Ford now getting ready to close down factories to
which another 35,000 jobs will be
lost. These people that have and will lose there jobs have know
class action law suits! Most don't even know what one really is, be
it known that when given the choice to sign up to sue a company
because it's for the good of the people, ??? this I question and
deny my ever putting my name on the dotted line! The lawyer's will
make all the money even if they win!
Stand up for what's right, but exactly what has been right in
the antitrust case is that Microsoft has surely taken a beating for
the most part but unjustly and certainly unfairly by a very bad if
not the worst Judge in History to proclaim that Microsoft is a
monopoly! Truly Microsoft has been one of best and greatest
companies in true innovation of the last century! It has made
HISTORY as being a giant in an industry started by others like IBM.
United States of America, we are at war now but with terrorist's
for Sept 11, 2001 also has now made HISTORY! We can no longer sit
back in this country and fight within ourselves as Microsoft is not
the enemy!
I am proud of this country and for which we stand, but right now
I'm sorry to say that the time to come together so that this country
and our people, many who do not wish to lose there jobs and their
sense of self respect need to see a heeling process begin again to
this great nation!
At this time, I implore the states that have not settled in the
Microsoft Anti-Trust Case to please do so and forget about the term
CLASS ACTION in the legal sense. Just to use some ACTION with CLASS
and settle so we as a Nation can count on YOU so we can Take care of
business where it needs to really be taken care of. Please help our
great country and leaders to do their jobs in regards to creating an
economic growth for the good of ALL the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
Terrence V. Lipinski
MTC-00011198
From: Mauro Gandini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with Microsoft
Mauro Gandini
The Outsourcing Company
Marketing e Comunicazione
Via S.A. Sauli, 19
20127 Milano ITALY
MTC-00011199
From: The Flanegans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge,
Please reconsider the Microsoft Settlement. As a household that
relies on incomes from small software companies and the
competitiveness they create, we cannot afford to have the monopoly
that is Microsoft drive this away.
Please reconsider.
Sincerely,
Christina Flanegan
MTC-00011200
From: Dan Flanegan / 4alarm films
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25424]]
Date: 1/15/02 3:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
As someone with over six years experience in high tech, I can
tell you I have experienced the strong arm tactics of Microsoft more
than once.
Unfortunately, the proposed settlement would not stop Microsoft
from taking these same tactics in the future.
I ask you to judge the facts and not act simply to put this
behind us. Do the right thing!
Sincerely,
/Dan Flanegan
Producer / Director
4alarmfilms
MTC-00011201
From: Richard Storey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Attorney General, et al:
I conceive the actions by the DOJ, under the Bush
administration, to be a failure regarding the handling of the
Microsoft case. Failure to break up this mega-corporation will
continue the oppressive effects Microsoft has upon the software
market and the PC industry. This may sound harsh, especially coming
from a conservative such as myself. However, I am knowledgeable
about software and PCs. Knowledgeable enough to know that DOJ took a
weak case against MS, because they are guilty of much, much worse
than they were found to be. It is evident to me, from the statements
from the lawyers in the case, that DOJ is almost without a clue when
it comes to PC operating systems and without a clue in assessing
what impact MS's coercive tactics have had in the PC industry, as
well as the software industry.
Microsoft is a mega-corporation that puts out grossly under-
engineered products. They are, in many ways, dangerous to the PC
industry, the consumer, and business. But the overwhelming majority
of the users out there don't have a clue about this. Ignorance is
their bliss. MS's strong-arm tactics, and anti-competitive monopoly
has grossly distorted and brought to ruin much of the competition in
the software industry. MS should be broken-up and anything short of
that is merely a slap on the hand of a serious offender against
freely competitive markets.
Some of us know, are aware of, why MS has risen to its place in
the market. Sure, the right people, at the right time made it so,
partly, but if it were not for IBM's size in the market and their
stupidity MS would not have been successful at dominating the entire
market. Also, since it was government contracts that, basically,
allowed IBM to achieve its status in the market we have series of
events made possible by government interference in the market. This
is why it is a lie to say that MS is what it is because it is
innovative (everyone knows it is not).
Get on with doing the right thing--pursue the break-up of
Microsoft and do it soon. It will change everything in the computer
and software markets for the better, and besides, considering their
practices of coercion with their vendors and the PC OEMs they
deserve it.
Sincerely,
Richard Storey
President
Primera Financial Group, LLC
22 West Bryan St., Ste. 234
Savannah, GA 31401
(912) 659-6256
(877) 639-1282 Fax
MTC-00011202
From: Claudio Vacalebre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just to remind you (I already wrote some week ago) my
disappointment on this story. I'm writing you mainly as a consumer,
although I'm the CEO and CIO of a very small Internet company.
I'll try to list my perceptions and opinions (my english is very
poor, so please excuse me for language mistakes).
1) This case wasted millions of $$, please stop this case and
please focus on REAL ISSUES, the people that worked, during the past
years on such case, could be used with more proficiency on more
important cases.
2) Me and other people wasted our time trying to learn about
this ``vapor-lex'' case, the time spent can be considered more
millions $$ wasted, please STOP wasting our time!
2a) If I was an American citizen I could add : Please STOP
wasting our money!
3) Microsoft always worked, as a company, with a very clear
goal: facilitate the ``digital-life'' of us and the results are
evident when you compare single pieces of technologies against MS
competitors.
4) The quality of the code provided, during the past 25 years,
was always improved as the main example of the honest commitment of
the company
5) You are condamning a company that started from scratch and
that was able to became the reference for all the world, with your
actions you are convincing entrepeneurs to ``stay small'', that
should be better for you but not for the global economy because in
this way no evolution can happen.
My list is very long but I do not want to continue wasting my
time on such ridicolous story. Just try to consider that this case
is not a game or a way to spend your time but try to use your time
to end it.
Best Regards and thanks in advance for doing nothing and wasting
and confusing us.
Dr.claudio\/
CEO & CIO
dotMMS srl
Email: [email protected]
Messenger: [email protected]
Sito ufficiale: www.dotmms.it
Portale dimostrativo servizi di Streaming: http://dotmms.tv
Sito Personale: http://claudio.tv
MTC-00011203
From: Karl Auerbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am presently the North American Elected Director on the Board
of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN).
I am a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). I
was recently named a Yuen Fellow of Law and Technology at the
California Institute of Technology (CalTech) and Loyola Law of Los
Angeles. I have started several companies over the years and have
been closely associated with several other startups.
I have been a developer of software since the late 1960s and
have been working on the Internet since its inception in the early
1970's. I have experienced first hand the damage that Microsoft has
caused to the software industry and to the Internet.
One startup with which I was associated was very definitely
``Microshafted'' when Microsoft used its operating system monopoly
to subsidise and to give away, without visible charge to the
customer, a product that directly competed with our products. Later,
when we tried to modify our products to be compatable with those
from Microsoft, I heard (secondhand) that Microsoft played a shell
game with enabling keys to their modules, thus forcing us to dance
to their tune.
It is my belief that the proposed settlement will do nothing to
prevent Microsoft from continuing to wreck havoc. As a Director of
ICANN I am responsible to protect the ``stability'' of the Internet.
Yet I see a great threat to the future of universal and impartial
interconnectivity of the Internet arising out of Microsoft's
leveraging of its dominance of user platforms to starve out any non-
Microsoft technologies or implementations.
The proposed settlement is inadequate. It does nothing to
redress the harm that Microsoft has caused. And it institutionalizes
those abusive and predatory practices so that they will be
repeatedly visited upon us and our children in the years to come.
The proposed settlement should be rejected in favor of a
settlement that truely will remedy the past damages and prevent
their recurrence in the future.
--karl--
Karl Auerbach
North American Elected Director, Board of Directors
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN)
MTC-00011204
From: Joseph Kane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:33am
Subject: microsoft settlement
As an ordinary citizen and member of the military I've sworn to
uphold the constitution of the U.S.A. I'm disgusted and appalled by
the continued harrassment of Microsoft and its shareholders by the
United States Government.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that there
is no such thing as a monolpoly in a free market. To penalize the
creative and successful is barbaric, un-American and comparable to
an act of terror.
If liberty and justice are to prevail the US Government must
immediately dismiss all anti-trust charges against Microsoft and any
other corporation or individual.
Sincerely,
Joseph Kane
[[Page 25425]]
MTC-00011205
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Justices,
It seems to me the most significant factor regarding the
decision to break up or apply punitive measures to Microsoft is
being completely ignored. This key factor was and still is
'interoperability', which is the ability of computers running
different operating systems to exchange files, data, and otherwise
communicate freely. Microsoft manipulated features and issues that
exploited or limited interoperability in order to squelch
competition.
Furthermore, the proposed settlement offers no resolution of
this core problem. There's little in the way of laws in place that
protects a consumer's rights to interoperability in an OS (Operating
System) or NOS (Network Operating System). Just as the development
of automobiles necessitated speed limits and standardized safety
equipment (turn signals, seatbelts, etc.), America need laws to
protect consumers from a single company controlling or
overmanipulating the evolution of such essential elements in its
network and computing environments.
Recommendation: Penalty and/or restitution be added or replace
self-monitoring agent; such that Microsoft be required to take a
principal role (via it's proven legal and technical expertise) in
enacting new laws that protect consumers' rights to an open OS
environment, while providing guidelines for product development that
complies with an open standard for OS and NOS interoperability. This
role may be manifested by the development of a standards
organization, or by a joint committee with congress to enact such
laws.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Christopher F. Harrison
MTC-00011207
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:29am
Subject: Microsoft remedy suggestion
No more OEM Software!! Have the consumer buy the OS and install
it or have your friendly neighbourhood installer do it. That way, if
there is a software problem with MS software, they have to field it
and not the OEMs.
The OEM hardware will be according to PUBLISHED compatible
specs, so MS can't weasel out and put the blame on hardware! MS has
to publish file specs, so competing office products are on the same
playing field.
Unbundle all non OS software from Windows and provide links to
ALL relevant additions. Legislate software ``Lemon Law'' and make
the producer responsible for damages.
Regards
Wolfgang Schneider
MTC-00011209
From: sonofgomez709
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Microsoft''
Subject: FINFlash Update: Time running out for DOJ comments
To: [email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:26:12-0800
While Microsoft commends these public officials for involving
citizens in a decision that will affect them so profoundly, your
voice is more important now than ever before to ensure that the DoJ
hears the full spectrum of opinion on this matter.
Gee, when Micro$not got an email containing what Eric Cordian
described as ``the best defense of Microsoft's anti-trust position
that I've seen,'' they had me charged with a felony and had their
employees perjure themselves and hide evidence in order to have me
convicted and imprisoned.
I would suggest that anyone sending any emails to Mico$not
consider the fact that it may result in their PerseProsExecution by
a CorporRapeTion and a GovernMint with bottomless pockets.
Besides, Micro$not's high-priced lawyers already proved their
inability to do anything more than piss away BadBillyG's money while
waiting for HisDigiHoliness' new found Respect for throwing large
amounts of money into the Corrupt Lobby System to take effect.
All anyone will do by providing Micro$not with public support is
open themselves up to Micro$not's legal wrath and unconstitutional
persecution while lowering the cost of Micro$not's political bribes.
People wshould be particularly careful in light of the impending
legislation doubling the sentences for computer crimes committed by
people using the Linux Operating System. (Hey! You don't think I'd
just make that up, do you?)
CJ Parker [email protected]>
http://profiles.yahoo.com/sonofgomez709
http://members.w-link.net/sog/INDEX.HTM
http://toto.diary-x.com
MTC-00011210
From: Schlep Rock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am voicing my displeasure and loathing toward the Proposed
Final Judgment. Microsoft, as we all know, continues to commit acts
of misdeeds. The Proposed Final Judgment doesnt help the situation
any better. In fact, the final settlement only worsens the existing
situation. For all intents and purpose, the PFJ does not deny
Microsoft its past violations and illegal acts. As one can see,
every court, which has been involved with the case, has found
Microsoft guilty of breaking the anti-trust laws. However, under the
proposed final settlement, Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be
permitted to retain most if not all profits gained through their
illicit activities.
Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties injured or
harmed through Microsofts egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ
will not take into account all Microsoft gains
made through its illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, the
final settlement is basically acknowledging the acceptance of
Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does this
send out to the public? I can assure you that the message is clear
and simple. The Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations
to engage in monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is
detrimental to the technology industry at large.
With all due respect your honor, I am outraged at such a
preposterous proposal that only helps Microsoft to remain intact and
continue with its unethical practices. I submit to you my objection
to this Proposed Final Judgment.
Respectfully,
Bill Utlak
Palos Verdes, CA
MTC-00011211
From: Ailei Jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
With all due respect, I abhorrently object to the Proposed Final
Judgment in the Microsoft case. There are several apparent flaws
with in the final proposal which will undoubtedly give Microsoft
absolute power to abuse their existing monopoly position. Based on
further review of the proposed settlement, there is one glaring
oversight that cannot be overlooked. One such noticeable defect
entails an ineffective and inept enforcement mechanism to implement
so-called restrictions. As stated in the settlement, Microsoft will
be closely monitored to comply with all restrictions encompassed
with in the stated agreement. A three man compliance team will
oversee and insure that Microsoft comply with the stated rules and
regulations. Taking a closer look however, this three-man oversight
team will be composed of the following: one appointee from the
Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, and another
appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft
will control half of the oversight team.
Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement proceeding, all
findings by the oversight committee will not be allowed into court.
The sole purpose of the committee is to inform the Justice
Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the Justice
Depart will launch its own investigation into the matter and
commence litigation to halt all infractions. When all is said and
done, the oversight committee is just window dressing, who will not
strictly oversee Microsofts business moves. In my opinion, the
Proposed Final Judgment does not provide sufficient and appropriate
restrictions or penalties against Microsoft.
What reassurance do we have against Microsofts illegal and
illicit activities? I can assure you that the Proposed Final
Judgment does not effectively nor sufficiently address the question.
Therefore I submit to the court my objection to the Proposed Final
Judgment.
Respectfully,
Ailei Jimenez
San Mateo, CA
[[Page 25426]]
MTC-00011212
From: Erlin Jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am giving my personal objection to the so-called Proposed
Final Judgment in regards to the Microsoft case. As history will
prove, Microsoft continues to violate business practices. The
Proposed Final Judgment in a sense, does not deny Microsoft its past
violations and illegal acts. As one can see, every court, which has
been involved with the case, has found Microsoft guilty of breaking
the anti-trust laws. However, under the proposed final settlement,
Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be permitted to retain most if
not all profits gained through their illicit activities.
Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties injured or harmed
through Microsofts egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will not
take into account all Microsoft gains made through its illegal
maneuverings. With all due respect, the final settlement is
basically acknowledging the acceptance of Microsofts anti-
competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the
public? I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to
the technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I
am outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps
Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its unethical
practices. Thus, I submit to you my objection to this Proposed Final
Judgment.
Sincerely
Erlin Ortiz
Lodi, CA
MTC-00011213
From: Ernesto Funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am submitting to you my personal objection to the Proposed
Final Judgment in regards to the Microsoft case. As history will
prove, Microsoft continues to violate business practices. The
Proposed Final Judgment in a sense, does not deny Microsoft its past
violations and illegal acts. As one can see, every court, which has
been involved with the case, has found Microsoft guilty of breaking
the anti-trust laws. However, under the proposed final settlement,
Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be permitted to retain most if
not all profits gained through their illicit activities.
Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties injured or harmed
through Microsoft's egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will
not take into account all Microsoft gains made through its illegal
maneuverings. With all due respect, the final settlement is
basically acknowledging the acceptance of Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the
public? I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to
the technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I
am outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps
Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its unethical
practices. I submit to you my objection to this Proposed Final
Judgment.
Respectfully,
Ernesto Funa
Stockton, CA
MTC-00011214
From: Eliza Funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am against the proposed final judgment. Over the past several
years, the Court has found Microsoft guilty of all misdeeds.
Nevertheless, the Proposed Final Judgment dismisses all previous
court findings indicting Microsoft. The PFJ allows Microsoft to
continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in my
opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also to
the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement.
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most
monopolies in the past are either broken up or carefully regulated.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is given a pardon to this general rule of
thumb. Also, admonishing Microsoft will not radically alter
Microsoft's existing operation methodologies. With out a doubt,
Microsoft will continue to abuse its monopoly position at the
expense of others. Unless the court breaks up Microsoft into several
parts, Microsoft will continue on with its illegal practices. In
conclusion, I object the Proposed Final Judgment.
Respectfully,
Liz Ageri
San Francisco, CA
MTC-00011215
From: Ricky G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I object to the so-called proposed final judgment in the
Microsoft case. In all past findings, the Court has found Microsoft
guilty of violating the Anti-Trust laws. Yet the PFJ or the proposed
final judgment throws out all previous court findings that indicts
Microsoft. In other words, the proposed final settlement allows
Microsoft to continue on with its predatory practices, which in my
opinion is a detriment to the technology industry. I am certain you
will receive thousands appeals entailing various flaws apparent in
the proposed final settlement. However, my main focus involves
one glaring flaw in the proposed settlement: The PFJ does not
effectively break up Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to
leverage its Monopoly to expand its business into several other
technology sectors. In the past most monopolies, such as AT&T, are
either broken up or carefully regulated. However in this case,
Microsoft is given a pardon or a waiver to this general rule of
thumb. In addition, a simple slap on the wrist by the Department of
Justice will not suffice in drastically altering Microsoft's
existing operation methodologies. As history has shown, Microsoft
will unfortunately abuse its monopoly position at the expense of
others. Unless something extraordinary is done, Microsoft will
continue to implement illegal business practices. Thus, I submit to
the Court that the Proposed Final Judgment does not solve the
problems involved in the Microsoft case.
All the Best,
Ricky Gamboa
Foster City, CA
MTC-00011216
From: Anne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
911 N. 107th Street
Seattle, WA 98133-8804
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between
the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft. Litigation has gone on
for far too long now, and I think the terms of the settlement are
fair and in the best interest of the public and American economy. A
number of the terms of settlement will help give consumer's freedom
to choose products. Microsoft had agreed to design future Windows
versions so that computer makers, software developers, and consumers
can more easily promote their own products from within Windows'
operating systems. Also, I like the fact that Microsoft has agreed
to form a three-person team to monitor compliance with the
settlement. I think the settlement is fair and reasonable and should
suit all parties. Unfortunately, there are nine states in
opposition. I urge your office to make the settlement a reality. Our
country needs American companies such as Microsoft to be focusing on
innovation, development, implementation and growth. Thank you for
your time.
Sincerely,
Anne Argue Dobrinen
MTC-00011217
From: Rich Gamboa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
Your honor, I object to the Proposed Final Judgment entailed in
the Microsoft case. After reading and analyzing the proposed
settlement, I am appalled that Microsoft can
[[Page 25427]]
get away with such
murder. Obviously here are several apparent flaws with in the
proposal which will undoubtedly give Microsoft absolute power to
abuse their existing power. Based on further review of the proposed
settlement, there is one glaring oversight that cannot be
overlooked. One such noticeable defect entails an ineffective and
inept enforcement mechanism to implement so-called restrictions. As
stated in the settlement, Microsoft will be closely monitored to
comply with all restrictions encompassed with in the stated
agreement. A three man compliance team will oversee and insure that
Microsoft comply with the stated rules and regulations. Taking a
closer look however, this three-man oversight team will be composed
of the following: one appointee from the Justice Department, one
appointee from Microsoft, and another appointee chosen by the two
existing members. In turn, Microsoft will control half of the
oversight team. Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement
proceeding, all findings by the oversight committee will not be
allowed into court. The sole purpose of the committee is to inform
the Justice Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently
the Justice Depart will launch its own investigation into the matter
and commence litigation to halt all infractions. When all is said
and done, the oversight committee is just window dressing, who will
not strictly oversee Microsoft's business moves. In my opinion, the
Proposed Final Judgment does not provide sufficient and appropriate
restrictions or penalties against Microsoft. What reassurance do we
have against Microsoft's illegal and illicit activities? I can
assure you that the Proposed Final Judgment does not effectively nor
sufficiently address the question. With all due respect, I submit to
the court my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment.
Kind Regards,
Richard Flores
Santa Barbara, CA
MTC-00011218
From: Di M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
Over the past several years, we have witnessed first hand the
predatory methods Microsoft uses to squash its competitors.
Therefore, I am filing my personal objection to the proposed final
judgment on the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has found
Microsoft guilty of violating all rules of proper business ethics
and practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the
Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court
findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft
to continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in
my opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also
to the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement.
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most
monopolies in the past, such as AT&T and Standard Oil, are either
broken up or carefully regulated. However, Microsoft is given a
pardon or a waiver to this general rule of thumb altogether. Also,
simple slaps on the wrist or severe reprimands by the Department of
Justice will not radically alter Microsoft's existing operation
methodologies. As history has proven over and over again, Microsoft
will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly position at the expense of
others. Unless something extraordinary is done such as breaking up
Microsoft's business into several parts or meting out severe
punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue to implement
illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that the Proposed
Final Judgment does not solve anything but exacerbates the existing
problem with Microsoft.
Respectfully,
Diana Mah
Lodi, CA
MTC-00011219
From: J J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am objecting to the Proposed Final Judgment. Microsoft
continues to break anti-trust laws and discards proper business
ethics. The Proposed Final Judgment does not punish Microsoft for
it's past violations or illegal acts. Every court, which has been
involved with the case, has found Microsoft guilty of misdeeds.
However, under the proposed final settlement, Microsoft,
surprisingly enough, will be permitted to retain most if not all
profits gained through their illicit activities. Subsequently, the
PFJ will not compensate parties injured or harmed through
Microsoft's egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will not take
into account all Microsoft gains made through its illegal
maneuverings. With all due respect, the final settlement is
basically acknowledging the acceptance of Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the
public? I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to
the technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I
am outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps
Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its unethical
practices. To the court, I submit my objection to this Proposed
Final Judgment.
All the Best,
James Anthony
Lodi, CA
MTC-00011220
From: janernest funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
With all due respect, I am stating my personal objection to the
so-called Proposed Final Judgment in regards to the Microsoft case.
As history will prove, Microsoft continues to violate Anti-Trust
laws. As a matter of fact, the final settlement does not deny
Microsoft its past violations and illegal acts. As one can see,
every court, which has been involved with the case, has found
Microsoft guilty of breaking the anti-trust laws. However, under the
proposed final settlement, Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be
permitted to retain most if not all profits gained through their
illicit activities. In addition, the PFJ will not compensate parties
injured or harmed through Microsoft's egregious misdeeds. In
addition, the PFJ will not take into account all Microsoft gains
made through its illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, the
final settlement is basically acknowledging the acceptance of
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does
this send out to the public? I can assure you that the message is
clear and simple. The Proposed Final Judgment encourages big
corporations to engage in monopolistic and predatory conduct, which
in turn is detrimental to the technology industry at large. With all
due respect your honor, I am outraged at such a preposterous
proposal that only helps Microsoft to remain intact and continue
with its unethical practices. I submit to you my objection to this
Proposed Final Judgment.
Sincerely,
Jan Ernest Pacual,
Sacramento, CA
MTC-00011221
From: justin funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
With all due respect your honor, I object to the following
Proposed Final Judgment. The final proposal undoubtedly gives
Microsoft complete authority to abuse their existing monopoly
position. After further review, there is one glaring mistake. The
flaw entails an inept enforcement mechanism to implement
restrictions on Microsoft. With in the settlement, Microsoft will be
closely scrutinized and monitored to comply with all restrictions
entailed in the stated agreement. Supposedly, a three man compliance
team will oversee and insure that Microsoft comply with the stated
rules and regulations. However after closer inspection, this
proposal only benefits Microsoft in the end. The three-man oversight
team will be composed of the following: one appointee from the
Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, and another
appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft
will control half of the oversight team. Also, in the likelihood of
any enforcement proceeding, all findings by the oversight committee
will not be allowed into court. The sole purpose of the committee is
to inform the Justice Department of all infractions by Microsoft.
Subsequently the Justice Depart will launch its own investigation
into the matter and commence
[[Page 25428]]
litigation to halt all infractions.
When all is said and done, the oversight committee is just a
complete smoke screen. In turn, this team will not strictly oversee
Microsoft's business moves. In many aspects, the Proposed Final
Judgment does not provide adequate or appropriate restrictions and
penalties against Microsoft. One cannot take comfort in the fact
that the Proposed Final Judgment helps Microsoft's illegal and
illicit activities. Therefore I submit to the court my objection to
the Proposed Final Judgment.
Respectfully,
Justin Montefrio
Lodi, CA
MTC-00011222
From: serafin jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am filing my personal objection to the proposed final judgment
on the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has found Microsoft
guilty of violating all rules of proper business ethics and
practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the
Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court
findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft
to continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in
my opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also
to the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement.
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most
monopolies in the past, such as AT&T and Standard Oil, are either
broken up or carefully regulated. However, Microsoft is given a
pardon or a waiver to this general rule of thumb altogether.
Also, Simple slaps on the wrist or severe reprimands by the
Department of Justice will not radically alter Microsoft's existing
operation methodologies. As history has proven over and over again,
Microsoft will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly position at the
expense of others. Unless something extraordinary is done such as
breaking up Microsoft's business into several parts or meting out
severe punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue to implement
illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that the Proposed
Final Judgment does not solve the Microsoft issue.
Respectfully,
Serafin Jimenez
Lodi, CA
MTC-00011223
From: arlene funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I adamantly oppose the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft
case. All courts, involved with the case, have found Microsoft
guilty of violating all anti-trust laws implemented by the Justice
Department. The PFJ basically throws out all previous court findings
indicting Microsoft. In other words, Microsoft has been given the
green light to continue on with its monopolistic endeavors. I'd like
to focus on one fundamental flaw present with in the proposed
settlement: For the most part, the proposed final settlement does
not sufficiently break up Microsoft. Instead, the settlement allows
Microsoft to utilize and leverage its current market position to
branch out into other technology markets. Most monopolies in the
past, such as Standard Oil, are either broken up or carefully
regulated. However in this case, Microsoft is given a full waiver to
this rule altogether. Also, a severe reprimand by the Department of
Justice will not change Microsoft's present operating methods.
Without a doubt, Microsoft will abuse its monopoly position at the
expense of others. Unless something drastic is done such as breaking
up Microsoft itself, Microsoft will continue to commit egregious
offenses. Thus I submit to the Court that the Proposed Final
Judgment is a huge mistake.
Best Regards,
Ping Funa
Sacramento, CA
MTC-00011224
From: Peter Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is neither fair nor
appropriate, and rewards monopolistic behaviour that has destroyed
many companies and severely distorted the market for software.
Actions to date have failed to understand the breadth of Microsoft's
monopoly, or the ways in which they continue to enforce it. In
particular, the Office package is used highly successfully to reduce
the ability of users to change operating systems platforms.
Microsoft should be ordered to place the Microsoft Office file
formats (for Excel, Access, Word, Powerpoint) in the public domain,
and to be given equal voting rights with a range of parties for
changes in this format. Microsoft should be forced to maintain
adherence to this structure as its primary file format. Such a
change would make it immediately possible for others (such as
StarOffice or WordPerfect) to use the same format, either as its
principal storage mechanism or for interchange. Competition would
then be based on the best software tools on the best platform,
rather than the lock-in that is created by Microsoft's frequent
changes to an unpublished format. This change would be far more
effective than any other remedy, and should be extended to open
publication of all file formats for any product that Microsoft
produces.
Sincerely
Peter Black
Dr Peter Black
Lead Architect
Digital Steps Limited, 1 Bell Court, Leapale Lane, Guildford GU1
4LY
Tel: +44 7976 243 919
MTC-00011225
From: arnie mamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am voicing my personal discuss and outrage at the proposed
final judgment in the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has
found Microsoft guilty of violating all rules of proper business
ethics and practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final
Judgment), the Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all
previous court findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ
permits Microsoft to continue with its monopolistic and predatory
practices, which in my opinion is a detriment not only to the
software sector but also to the technology industry as a whole.
Without a doubt, I strongly believe you will receive thousands of
similar appeals encompassing the many flaws that are apparent in the
proposed final
[[Page 25429]]
settlement. My main focus entails one fundamental
flaw clearly noticeable in the proposed settlement: The PFJ does not
effectively break up Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to
leverage its current market position, or should I say, Monopoly to
expand its business into several other technology markets. Under the
general rule, most monopolies in the past, such as AT&T and Standard
Oil, are either broken up or carefully regulated. However, Microsoft
is given a pardon or a waiver to this general rule of thumb
altogether. Also, Simple slaps on the wrist or severe reprimands by
the Department of Justice will not radically alter Microsoft's
existing operation methodologies. As history has proven over and
over again, Microsoft will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly position
at the expense of others. Unless something extraordinary is done
such as breaking up Microsoft's business into several parts or
meting out severe punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue
to implement illegal business practices. Therefore I submit to the
Court my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment.
Respectfully,
Arnie Montefrio
San Francisco, CA
MTC-00011226
From: Anthony Mamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I object to the proposed final judgment on the Microsoft case.
The Court has found Microsoft guilty of violating all Anti-Trust
rules. Yet, the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the Department of
Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court findings that
indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft to continue
with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in my opinion
is a detriment not only to the software sector but also to the
technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly believe
you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing the many
flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement. My main
focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most
monopolies in the past are either broken up or carefully regulated.
However, Microsoft is given a pardon or a waiver to this general
rule of thumb altogether. Also, severe reprimands will not
drastically change Microsoft's existing operation methodologies.
Undoubtedly, Microsoft will continue to abuse its monopoly position.
Unless something extraordinary is done such as meting out severe
punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue to implement
illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that the Proposed
Final Judgment does not solve the Microsoft issue.
All the Best,
Jun Mamon
San Francisco, CA
MTC-00011227
From: Andy Raynor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:09am
Subject: Microsoft case
I wish to express my concerns with the ongoing Microsoft anti-
trust trial and the remedies that have been suggested. The current
proposed remedy, a monitoring system, represents the least effective
solution imaginable since it relies on independent policing efforts.
The remedy for Microsoft's violation of anti-trust law and
violation of previous consent decrees must be two-pronged. Failure
to implement both portions will fail to compensate consumers harmed
by the monopolistic behavior and curtail that behavior in the
future.
First, the company should be compelled to pay some significant
sum in the form of computers and software to public school systems
as Microsoft has offered in its settlement. Consumers are entitled
to this compensation but associating individual damages to specific
consumers would be impossible without overwhelming discovery costs.
The provision of equipment and software to public schools represents
a good reparation to the citizens of this country for the damages
incurred.
The details of Microsoft's donation are critically important.
Microsoft should be required to provide a pc and software fund for
each state. This provides each state flexibility on achieving their
education objectives and allows states to explore open source
alternatives running on pc hardware. Software must be provided at
Microsoft's best price. This will greatly increase the real
compensation received since retail pricing may be between 400%-800%
higher than volume pricing.
Apple's opposition to this is entirely self-serving and
represents an attempt to hold onto ever decreasing market-share
rather than benefiting consumers. A focus on pc's would allow
schools to maximize volume discounts for hardware purchases and
leverage either the growing open source movement or Microsoft
solutions.
Second, the company must be broken up. The market is the most
efficient and reliable mechanism for regulating behavior. Any other
solution with either be ineffective at changing behavior or much
more costly. By breaking the company up, management of each company
will perform in a ``correct'' manner based on market forces.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide input.
Andy Raynor
MTC-00011228
From: Mauro Talevi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I very very strongly urge the Department of Justice to ensure
that the dominant and de-facto monopolistic position that Microsoft
has gained be corrected--with strong and effective measures. The
terms of the settlement are clearly insufficient and unsatisfactory
in this regard. Information technology has enormously grown in
importance in the last 20 years, and can be comparable to energy and
telecommunications as strategic and vital economic sectors. In the
past the Antitrust Act has been applied to oil and
telecommunications companies.
This case is equally--if not more--important and critical.
Monopolies are extremely damaging to any capitalistic system. I hope
the Department of Justice will act promptly and not be intimidated
by the catastrophic predictions made by Microsoft.
With very best regards,
Mauro Talevi
MTC-00011229
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It appears that the competitors of Microsoft (and the states
where they are situated) have decided to improve their lot not by
being better and having something better to offer the consumer.
They've decided to punish Microsoft for having a superior product.
Please be aware that finding in Microsoft's favor, you would be
doing a great deal for the consumer--and for the economy--since
millions of us are investors in the company, because we believe in
it...
Rita and Richard Monley
MTC-00011230
From: Martin Coles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
Having been in the Computer industry for the last 20 years, I
can only say that Microsoft has performed brilliantly for the
consumer.
Through their success and resultant position, they have been
able to bring down the cost of computing such that it is now
affordable by everyone.
Further, the inclusion of various components in the operating
system is once again in the consumers interest, enabling them to use
the software easily.
Multiple operating systems from numerous suppliers would not
have provided a uniform and easily understandable and affordable
opportunity for the man on the street to own and use a computer.
Well done Microsoft!
Kind regards
Martin Coles
Pinnacle Orlando LLC.
Florida . USA
407 891 2857
See our website http://www.thereyougo.net/
MTC-00011231
From: Baumgart, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am adding my comment on the proposed antitrust settlement with
9 states and Microsoft. It is my opinion that the DOJ has ``gone
soft'' on Microsoft, dropping some of the key provisions for a just
and fair settlement. It also appears to me that the DOJ is preparing
to let Microsoft off with a slap on the hands instead of any real
penalty.
Microsoft was convicted of predatory practices aimed at
squashing the competition and I believe they should be punished.
Their conviction held up under appeal.
I agree with the 9 states that ``pulled out'' and are seeking
tougher remedies.
David Baumgart
Executive Director, Information Systems Dept
John Morrell & Co.
805 East Kemper Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
(513) 346-3562
MTC-00011232
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
From: Anthony D'Andrea
Box 1209
Randolph MA 02368
Re: Microsoft prosecution
People:
I still remember the last thing Microsoft produced which, as far
as I know, was a legitimate creation of their own company. It was a
Floating-Point BASIC Interpreter for the old Apple II Machines that
came out around 1979 or so. Since then, it has been all downhill for
MS.
It is common knowledge that Bill Gates stole the MS-Dos
operating system from his partner at Altair, then sold IBM on using
it for the OS in their first computers which appeared several years
after the Apples.
Gates' next lie read like this: ``If you want a personal
computer that you can hook up to your business mainframe, it will
have to be an IBM''. Not an ounce of truth in it, but between the
cosmetic value of the lie and IBM's massive market share, it enabled
MS to capture a good 85% of market share from what had been mostly
Apple's territory. Later, after Apple had begun incorporating mouse
and windows technology into their
[[Page 25430]]
later Apple II's, the Apple III,
the Lisa and early Macs, MS produced the first version of Windows,
for which Apple promptly and properly sued them for copyright
infringement. Apple won that round, and MS's ``Trash Can'' has been
a ``Recycle Bin'' ever since.
Unfortunately, the lies and thievery from Gates & Co. was far
from over. Since that time, every innovation that has come down the
pike has run headlong into Bill Gates. Innumerable companies have
had to make the choice between selling out, licensing the technology
to MS or being driven out of business by being undersold. To this
day, hardware companies sell their wares at near cost, simply in an
effort to undercut the competition and keep others like Apple from
regaining any market share, then they make their profits from the
software later.I own a Macintosh machine. The machine is equipped
with a package called ``Virtual PC'', which allows me to run Windows
on the Mac and use any of MS's software, should I choose to do so. I
have consistently found Mac software to be far more easy, user-
friendly and stable than the MS equivalents. Still, when I visit
most software vendors, I find them reluctant, almost fearful, of
carrying Mac software.Chains such as Walmarts get their stock thru
central buyers which have shown reluctance in the extreme to carry
anything BUT MS compatible software. In one case, a chain called
``Best Buy'', I discovered Mac and Windows versions of identical
software on the shelf together, with the Mac version selling at $10
more than the MS version. I summoned the store manager and demanded
an explanation. I was told that if he did not price the products in
that fashion, MS would pull all their products from his shelves.This
has not been the exception, but the rule. How blatant does MS have
to act before they can be found guilty of racketeering? How
obviously does a monopoly have to conduct themselves to be
recognized for what they are? And how many people will have to be
hurt or driven out of business before someone takes this monster in
hand and administers justice???
The dangers of such a concentration of power go far beyond
simply fair business practices. Their efforts, for instance, to
modify Sun's JAVA language earned them lawsuits and produced a
certain degree of confusion among web programmers. Their regular
introduction of new media formats without the software to allow
other systems to immediately keep up with the changes provides them
with additional pressure to sidestep fair competition. And thruout
these efforts, there is always the MS database, in which a great
deal of personal information is kept.Does a database of personal
information provide a threat in and of itself? Of course not. I am
sure Apple has my name and address somewhere in its files. But think
of the back-door that MS gave to the NSA, which allows them to enter
anyone's computer, anywhere in the world, examine the hard drive and
even read and write on that drive with complete concealment. When
the Chinese discovered that, they began a campaign to eliminate
Windows from every machine in their country and replace it with
Unix. Think also of the Eschalon program, which has had Japanese and
German authorities angry at us in the USA for some time now, as they
have justifiable fears of corporate espionage if that aforementioned
``back-door'' gets into the wrong hands.
Right now, business has almost no alternative to Windows. And
since Windows is nearly completely borrowed or stolen technology,
several years behind Apple and others, and since some real security
threats exist and grow more ominous on a daily basis, something MUST
be done and done soon to eliminate this threat.
The only solution is to deal with Microsoft thru the courts, in
the most appropriate way possible, under the RICO laws as
racketeers. By taking them in hand, forcefully, and compelling them
to adopt practices that will open the market to real competition,
you will find that rather than hindering development, it will
enhance the opportunities for competing companies to enter the
marketplace and speed the development of new technology. The
companies are already out there, working on new ideas, developing
approaches to market their ideas while defending their battlements
from the MS assaults that will surely head their way when the threat
of innovation becomes visible.
There are nine states at this time that disagree with the DOJ
resolution of the case against MS. This may be the last opportunity
to wield the sword of the Law against a seemingly unassailable
threat. I beg you, use the power that you have in this just
cause.For just one of hundreds of sources of more background and
documentation of the illegal and anti-competitive practices of MS, I
refer you to this website... http://hive.me.gu.edu.au/csand/md/
0soft.html>http://hive.me.gu.edu.au/csand/md/0soft.html
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Your
response would be appreciated and a dialogue welcomed.
Anthony D'Andrea
Randolph Massachusetts
MTC-00011233
From: david zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:43am
Subject: Strcter punishment!
Dear Sir/Madam,
Microsoft behavior in the past has shown us its greediness and
its true nature. The punishment should be stricter. If we cannot do
it today, we will end up in the same situation as we have now with
Iraq because we did not finish the job at that time. Please, for a
better and more dynamic and diversified technology world, give
Microsoft a stricter punishment.
Sincerely,
David
MTC-00011234
From: Christopher L. Lupton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to accept the settlement. The Attorney Generals in
the 9 states opposing the settlement are definitely not acting in
the best interest of their constituents, our economy or the nation.
I kindly ask that you
please review this e-mail and take it into consideration during your
decision.
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Lupton
President
InfoDynamics, Inc.
7351 Shadeland Station, STE 260
Indianapolis, IN 46256
MTC-00011235
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please, settle this issue as soon as possible. Microsoft is a
fine company and should be allowed to get on with its business. It
is bad enough to permit these states to extort millions from
Microsoft. Do not compound the damages by delaying the conclusion.
James G. Hauf
MTC-00011236
From: Neil Stahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:56am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Don't Do It
Sirs:
The future of the American computer industry is in your hands.
It will be a bleak future if Microsoft is left as the monopoly your
proposed settlement would achieve.
As long as one company makes the dominant operating system and
applications it will always have an incredible advantage in both
markets and will have little reason to innovate or to do a good job.
This is born out by the way Microsoft has achieved dominance in both
markets, from a start where there were many competitors and software
was evolving fast. If you are watching the evolution of software
now, you must notice it has slowed to a crawl. If you are watching
the quality of software Microsoft produces you have seen security
for our computers running their software is remarkably poor. In a
market with real competition this wouldn't happen, market forces
would correct it.
As a computer user I urge you:
1. Do not go through with this settlement.
2. Do split Microsoft into two or more parts, isolating the part
that makes operating systems from the rest.
Sincerely,
Neil Stahl
248 Rainbow Drive #14876
Livingston, Tx. 77399-2048
MTC-00011237
From: Larry Hannay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can't believe the way you guys are buckling under. Current
situations, now matter how extreme, should have nothing to do with
resolving the problem at hand. I think legislators that have been,
shall we say, ``influenced'', by Microsoft campaign contributions
are using the Sept. 11th tragedy and the economy in general to go
easy on Microsoft without incurring a negative public response. And
I think that stinks. Especially since it is your job to represent
the public's best interests. But as always, the public loses
[[Page 25431]]
out to
corporate concerns. I spend a lot of time reading newspapers and
technical magazines, and every stinking article I have read points
out that not only is Microsoft not getting punished, but your so-
called ``solution'' will help it to increase its monopoly by giving
it inroads to the school market that Apple now does so well in. If
every stinking magazine article author can see this, then why can't
you? Huh? You people disgust me. And then you wonder why the voting
populace is so cynical and uninvolved. Or is that the way you want
it.
Please don't bother to respond. Your ``spin'' makes me sick.
Larry Hannay
16 Cutter Ave.
Somerville, MA
MTC-00011238
From: Rail, Marcus E.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 8'00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
See attached Microsoft WORD document for comments.
Renata B. Hesse January 15, 2002
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
This letter is written to comment on the Department of Justice
proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case.
As a corporate purchaser of Microsoft products, we conclude that
the settlement does nothing to address the real concerns of the
customer. Those concerns involve the increasing ability of Microsoft
to set extreme pricing policies without fear of customer loss, and
to design products without proper concern to the customer's needs.
Microsoft products have served our company fairly well in many areas
and we believe Microsoft brought many innovations to PC desktop
tools. However, we also believe that Microsoft used questionable
practices to drive out the competition or acquire it at a very low
cost. For the most part, especially for products like WINDOWS,
OFFICE, and INTERNET EXPLORER, we feel we had and still have no real
alternative to Microsoft products.
Our other software vendors who work with Microsoft endure
extreme pressure to do it Microsoft's way. If they don't, they face
severe penalties by a company that truly controls the desktop
market. Rather than respond to the customer, we find many of our
vendors responding to Microsoft so that Microsoft revenues are
maximized.
We question the ``freedom to innovate'' banner that Microsoft
uses to justify their practices. In fact, all we see is slavery to
Microsoft for customers and other software vendors. It may be that
Microsoft could have won its present monopolist position just
through the quality of its products and hard work. We'll never
really know. We do know that they are now exercising that
monopolistic position to the detriment of the customer. We are now
being forced to pay millions of dollars to upgrade to product
versions we don't need. The only viable alternative given to us is
to pay much higher prices when they finally force us into
obsolescence. All software companies try to generate revenue through
planned obsolescence, however, only a monopolist can carry it to the
extent that Microsoft has, and make the profits it has. The present
proposed settlement barely slaps Microsoft on the wrist for past
practices and will not deter it from future anti-competitive
practices. Moreover, the root of the problem Microsoft's control of
both the dominant desktop operating system and the major application
software for desktops--will result in costs for the consumer that
are not controlled by competition and not in line with the value
delivered.
Marcus E. Rally Manager, System Software, Information Systems,
Cooper Tire Company
John E. Mitchell Vice-President, Information Systems, Cooper
Tire Company
Todd E. Shin Barger Director, Information Systems, Cooper
Standard Automotive
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Lima & Western Aves., Findlay,
Ohio 45840
MTC-00011239
From: Ronald Ford
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Ford
1211 S.W. Anita St
Arcadia, Fl 34266
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice ,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ronald T. Ford
MTC-00011240
From: Alan L. Hansen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan L. Hansen
124 North 155st
Shoreline, Wa 98133-5926
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alan L. Hansen
MTC-00011241
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I am a personal computer user. I think the settlement that has
been reached is fair and should be approved. That will allow the
public to continue receiving the services of the many new products
that Microsoft can develop for our computers.
Thomas F. Sullivan
219 Alpine Dr.
Winter haven, FL 33881
MTC-00011242
From: William Enouen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen: At a time when American Industry is challenged to
continue to do better and the technology firms are in a downturn, it
would seem appropriate to conclude some of the legal activities
against Microsoft with just settlements rather than letting such
settlements drag on, costing the company and its shareholders and
the government and its taxpayers. The case should be concluded and
the settlement agreed upon allowed so both parties can get on with
more effective use of their time. Thanks for your attention.
MTC-00011243
From: Jim Presley
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 8:18am
[[Page 25432]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--No!
Hey, I thought you guys were supposed to be protecting us from
predators-- not siding with them! What kind of Justice Department
have we got here? A bunch of toadies for political donors.
MTC-00011244
From: John Keyes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To whom it concerns,
I think the settlement is a betrayal of America. It is an insult
to suggest that the terms of the settlement are sufficient.
Micro$oft will continue its predatory approach to the software
market and will continue to hold institutes of education to ransom.
It is time to resolve the issue and extract adequate compensation
from Microsoft for the companies that have been damaged and for
every child whose education costs rise as a result of disgusting
licensing terms. It is also necessary so the collective power and
choice of a free market can begin to thrive in the software market.
-John Keyes
Ireland
MTC-00011245
From: Morris, Perry
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to get on with life......this has drug on long enough.
The public will not be well served to have this linger on.
Thank you,
Perry Morris
Coordinator, Computer Applications
Facilities Operations and Maintenance
Florida State University
850.644.8699
[email protected]
MTC-00011246
From: Julie Noll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Again, I am outraged. While reading the article in USA Today,
dated 1/15/2002, written by Kevin Maney, Silicon Valley CEOs don't
pull verbal punches, I couldn't believe what I was reading. ``In one
corner is the tag team of Larry Ellison, CEO of database software
company Oracle, and Scott McNealy, CEO of computer maker Sun
Microsystems. In the other corner: their professed enemy, Microsoft,
and its leader, Bill Gates. Ellison and McNealy consistently and
publicly hurl harsh, sometimes personal and sometimes funny insults
at Microsoft and Gates. Ellison has called Microsoft products
``pathetic'' and motivated employees by showing a computer-generated
image of Gates giving them the finger. McNealy has referred to Gates
as ``Butthead,'' compared his management skill with Bozo the Clown
and proclaimed that the battle of the future is ``mankind vs.
Microsoft.'' I cannot believe our government would allow themselves
to be influenced by CEO such as Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison. If
you ask me I believe their tactics need to be further investigated.
I have wrote many times before this case is no longer about justice.
It is simply a few CEO allowed to use our government to further
their causes.
I am growing ever tired of all these grown men acting like
babies. What they need to do is simply create great products, build
their companies and stop whining.
It is time settle this entirely.
Julie Anne
MTC-00011247
From: Gerhard Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:28am
Subject: Additional Remedies
Microsoft continues to work towards the utter destruction of any
possible competition. Currently in Microsoft's sites are Java and
Linux. It is informative that because of Microsoft's monopoly
position, only products offerred free (such as Java and Linux),
cause any threat to Microsoft.
I would propose the following remedies:
1) Microsoft be forced to charge a minimum price for each piece
of bundled software such as the Media player, Word, Excel,
PowerPoint. The charge would be separately stated and users could
decline to purchase the software with thier new machine. This would
create a price evelope which competitors could exist within.
2) Microsoft be forced to include the latest release of Java
unmodified with its latest releases of Windows. This would ease the
integration burdens for Java-based competitive packages.
3) Microsoft be forced to release Linux versions of its
Microsoft Office suite at the same time as comparable Windows
versions. This would be extremely helpful in developing Linux as a
viable competitor to Microsoft on the desktop.
4) Microsoft be forced to stop bundling software with Windows or
Office and be forced to charge for the software. Since both products
are basically provided with all machines, anything Microsoft bundles
in destroys a previously existing market since it is hard to get
folks to pay for what Microsoft provides for free.
5) Microsoft be forced to charge one price for Windows both
retail and wholesale to manufacturers. Microsoft's current scheme
strongly encourages the purchase of a new machine to get a new copy
of Windows because the retail cost of Windows is so high compared to
the cost of a new machine with the same copy of Windows. Since the
cost to duplicate a CD is so cheap, there is no econimic
justification for the discounts given.
Gerhard Beck
703 676 4403
MTC-00011248
From: e cummings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
rather than rewarding the guilty party (microsoft) by allowing
them to continue monopolizing their markets, (under the guise of
donating their products to schools and such) i think a more fitting
punishment would be to compel microsoft to sponsor independent
contractors to install the freeand open-standard Linux operating
system and compatible program on the computers they donate,
and to train students, faculty, and other
users on the use of Linux.
allowing microsoft to ``lock in'' even more customers by
compelling the company to indoctrinate even more people in the use
of their closed, proprietary products is no punishment at all.
allowing microsoft to write off the retail cost of any software they
donate is a reward--the company's true cost for this extra software
is negligible, and they will profit from the sale of ``upgrades.''
(the term ``upgrades'' is in quotes because traditionally
microsoft's upgrades primarily consist of bug fixes and patches to
their already faulty products.)
ed cummings
MTC-00011249
From: Paul Speer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:29am
Subject: Do not settle--the 1930s parallel
In the 1930s, the motion picture industry (read applications
software) controlled the theaters (read operating system). The DO]
brought suit and broke up this set of monopolies (different
companies owned different theater chains). The same principle
applies here.
Microsoft makes and will continue to make economic rents from
the present system. In so doing unnecessary costs are added to
businesses using MS products which are passed on to the consumers.
Having the Windows operating systems opened to the entry of
applications software without the present arbitrary constraints can
only be assured through a break-up of the monopoly.
Paul Speer
[email protected]
MTC-00011250
From: Dave G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:40am
Subject: Apple in Schools
The big move in education is standardization on skills that will
do the most good. Learn math basics, learn english basics, etc.. The
political engine has dictated to schools that they need to teach
only things that have value in the market place.
Based on this logic, Apple should be as popular in schools as
UNIX computers. Apple Macintosh is a niche machine used primarily by
print shops and graphic designers. UNIX is a bigger niche product
used primarily in enterprise server environments. Both can be, and
in the case of UNIX is learned in college for specialized fields.
The rest of the world for the most part uses Windows with or without
MS applications. Like it or not, that is the economic and business
norm. Hence, our children should be tought this because it IS the
norm. My kids went to a grade school that bought gobs of iMacs. They
sat in the halls in boxes for two years. Eventually the teachers
ended up setting up the machines. These machines were rarely even
used. The reason was the schools IT dept. did not understand Mac nor
did they care to. No one wrote an education plan using Mac software.
These machine were simply a waste of
[[Page 25433]]
donation. My kids have moved on
to Jr. High. The school is just dripping with Dell Wintel boxes, 4
to every classroom and several all computer labs. Not an Apple to be
seen. These conputers are up and running and being used. Sorry
Steve. As fo software bundling, everyone does it. MS does, Apple
does, Linux does, even big UNIX vendors do. That is how you get
consumers to buy. Apple comes with both Netscape and Explorer and
iTunes, and CD-Creator, and etc..... Why are these other companies
not being censored for their use. Back when the Netscape/Explorer
issue was hot, the argument was MS was giving their browser away. So
was Netscape. I have never paid for a browser. I only switched to
Explorer when Netscape became an unusable application under version
4. Even today, when designing web pages, you still have to becareful
to code around Netscape's poor programming habits.
Enough from one person.
Dave Gould
Graphic Designer (My Macintosh side)
MSCE (My Microsoft side)
Geek (My Linux side)
MTC-00011251
From: Koestler, Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear United States Dept. of Justice, Under the Tunney Act, I
would like to provide my comments regarding the Microsoft
settlement.
As a US citizen and a tax payer, I'm very concerned and quite
frankly disappointed about the continued efforts of my government to
pursue a company that continues to innovate. Here is a company that
started with nothing, developed quality software at very competitive
prices, became successful and now the government wants to punish
them. Microsoft's software continues to deliver more features,
integrate additional applications, increase performance, all at
lower prices. As a consumer, I'm not sure how I'm harmed.
I disagree with the appeals court ruling against Microsoft, but
respect there decision. I feel the recent settlement reached is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I, along
with many others consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is
good for them, the industry and the American economy. I hope you
reach the same conclusion.
Regards,
Jim Koestler
Manager, Sales Engineering
MTC-00011252
From: Cartier, Philip
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 8:54am
Subject: MS Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I think the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case
is totally inadequate. As a user and occasional buyer of MS
products, this settlement does nothing to reduce the excessive
prices, poor functionality, and lack of choice that I have faced in
the software market due to Microsoft's predatory practices. In
addition, the proposed settlement simply extends the Microsoft
monopoly to one of the few remaining areas where it is not the major
supplier- the education market. The only kind of settlement that
provides meaningful redress for us abused customers would be one
that would prevent future abuses. That would mean significant
penalties, i.e. cash payments that are at least 10-20% of published
profits over the last five years and criminal charges against the
current and future management if abuses occur again.
Phil Cartier
ph: 5167
MTC-00011253
From: Bev Mautner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:56am
Subject: I support the recent settlement between US DOJ and
Microsoft
Bev and Mark Mautner
600 SW 100 Terrace
Pembroke Pines, FL 33025
Jan 15, 2002,
US Attorney General John Ashcroft, DOJ
Dear Mr Ashcroft,
End this protracted litigation. Enough is enough. The settlement
is fair.. I support the recent settlement between the US DOJ and
MIcrosoft. Some of the terms seem fair and reasonable. Others, I do
not feel knowledgeable enough to make a judgement call on, but one
of those terms, I am concerned about. This involves the issue of
being forced to give up the internal interfaces and protocols needed
to develop products that are compatible with Window' operating
systems. Let's face it. Microsoft has without a doubt been one of
the principal driving forces behind America being the leader in
technology advancements in computerization. I object to any
government entity not protecting their property and/or intellectual
rights. Microsoft has worked hard and spent incredible amounts of
money and devoted much of their resources to making products and
developing new technologies that spin off entire new industries. It
is essential that companies be reassured their intellectual property
rights are protected by the American justice system whether they be
a company has powerful as Microsoft or the next ``Bill Gates wanna
be''.
I therefore urge your office to persuade the nine states holding
out to settle, and bring closure to this long and protracted
lawsuit.
Sincerely yours,
Beverly and Mark Mautner
MTC-00011254
From: Ferraro, James A
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
I think it would be in the American publics interest that the
DOJ look into the Enron Case than to waste time attacking Microsoft
for helping to make this the financially strongest nation in the
world.
James A. Ferraro
Lockheed Martin Missile & Space
Air Force Reentry Systems Programs
230 Mall Boulevard, King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: 610-354-2932
Fax: 610-354-5225
MTC-00011255
From: Lloyd, Chris M.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thank you for allowing the public to comment on the referenced
settlement for Microsoft Corporation. I urge the Department of
Justice to accept the terms of the antitrust settlement and
immediately stop this endless waste of public tax resources. From my
perspective, the Justice Department and the nine states contesting
this settlement are tilting at windmills, wasting the tax payers
investment and needlessly persecuting one of the most innovative and
creative private enterprises of both the 20th and 21st centuries. I
would rather the resources we are using to witch hunt a major
American corporation be diverted to the attack on terrorist
organizations in this country.
Thank you again for this opportunity to weigh in.
Chris
Chris M. Lloyd, AICP, REM
Senior Supervising Planner
Parsons Brinckerhoff
757-466-9675 Office, 757-466-1493 Fax,
757-581-9695 Cell
[email protected]
MTC-00011256
From: Danielson, Miguel C.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
For the past 10 years, I have watched in terrific disgust at the
effect of Microsoft, Inc.'s business tactics on average American
consumers. For much of this time period, I have been a casual
computer purchase consultant and/or Internet development consultant.
In both capacities, I have seen the process of decision making in
computer hardware and software purchases.
Consumers, particularly in the field of high-technology, are
incredibly swayed by the options presented to them at retail
locations in their area. For more years than I wish to think about,
such options were horribly limited. There was essentially one choice
of operating system on one choice of platform. This is all well and
good, but when the choice of Internet Service Provider and Internet
browser are then thrust upon such consumers by the same provider of
the operating system, the choices seem to evaporate.
When I first began using the Internet in 1994, Microsoft's
Internet Explorer wasn't even in existence, of course. For many
years after that, nobody would touch a non-Netscape browser. This
was all well and good, just as it was fine that Microsoft dominated
the computer market. But Netscape never had a true monopoly on its
product, and it never took advantage of any marketplace dominance it
had. As the years went by, the inclusion of Internet Explorer on
Windows machines was simply too easy for people to avoid. Though
virtually every person of technical computer knowledge I knew
preferred Netscape, Internet Explorer
[[Page 25434]]
somehow became the standard
for Web browsing.
As an Internet developer, I struggled with the mess that
Microsoft created by supporting only certain HTML standards in its
Internet Explorer. Moreover, it extended the HTML command set so Web
programmers could do things with their Web browser that weren't
``allowed'' by the HTML standard that makes the Web run. Developers
found themselves having to design three different versions of the
same website because of Microsoft's marketplace antics.
With the dawn of Linux, it seems as though, at least for the
power users, there was some choice in operating system. Of course,
Microsoft swiftly ended such hope by making sure major PC
manufacturers couldn't offer any such alternative operating system
and still sell Windows in addition. All of these examples are to say
nothing of the predatory business tactics that Microsoft employed to
extinguish smaller software and hardware businesses that might
legitimately compete with them. To be a lawyer in the high-tech
industry is to know of many stories of the Microsoft bullying that
is commonplace among companies they see as a threat to them. It is
truly a farce that Microsoft purports to be a company of innovation.
It is well known amongst computer buffs like myself that Microsoft
has never have a creative thought in its collective corporate
history. It acquires what it wants and fills in the holes. This does
not create value for consumers--it reduce what they see in the
marketplace and limits them to a single provider.
Please reconsider your course of easing the punishment for
Microsoft. The computer and Internet industries will only continue
to spiral downward if Microsoft's antics are not swiftly defeated.
Under NO circumstances should they be allowed to put their operating
system or other products into the hands of consumers. Regardless of
whether such products are delivered for free, it is well known that
the use of these products by consumers will only further Microsoft's
goal of universal adoption and continued monopolization. It MUST be
a requirement that any software or computers donated as a part of
the settlement must be non-Microsoft related.
Thank you,
Miguel Danielson
Cambridge, MA
MTC-00011257
From: Suzie Overman
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02 8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Suzie Overman
8055 Creekwood Cir. E.
Southaven, MS 38671
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: The
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Suzie Overman
MTC-00011258
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:02am
Subject: Settlement
The very idea of allowing microsoft to place its own products
into schools as part of its monoply ``cure'' is ludicrous beyond
words. Please help build a little faith in the government by making
this part of the settlement PURE CASH
Thanks
Ted Ciolli
2000 Seven Hills Road
Jefferson City, MO 65101
MTC-00011259
From: Mr Bleakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:05am
Subject: Microsoft settelment
Sirs: My opinion is SETTLE. Get off Microsofts back. Mr.
Bleakley
MTC-00011260
From: James Eshleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US Department of Justice:
I strongly support the proposed settlement between the US
Government and Microsoft. This trial has gone on for long enough and
with or economy in recession the last thing we need to do is harass
profitable US companies like Microsoft.
From the beginning this case has seemed like Netscape, AOL-Time
Warner, Sun, and other Microsoft competitors have been pushing to
have Microsoft broken up, or punished, and not because they believe
Microsoft is stifling innovation and hurting consumers, but the
opposite. Microsoft is innovating and lowering the prices of
computer software all the time, but companies like Netscape who have
an inferior products can't keep up, don't forget that before
Microsoft started giving away Internet Explorer, Netscape was
charging for its Communicator browser.
The settlement is a good idea, and hopefully it'll go through.
Microsoft is one of the most valuable companies the US has, and we
need to realize that and let them keeping operating and out-
performing the competition.
Thanks,
James Roy Eshleman
Charlotte, NC
MTC-00011261
From: Marty McClamma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In section C: I think that having a MS employee oversee MS is
like having a Cat watch over a bird. The settlement would have more
effect if MS had to pay for a Federal Employee to over see MS.
Marty McClamma
MTC-00011262
From: Harold Burstyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
In my opinion, the proposed settlement does not meet the needs
of consumers. It will leave Microsoft's unlawful monopoly largely
intact. Nothing in Microsoft's market behavior since the appellate
remand suggests that they are prepared to play by the rules
applicable to companies that have a monopoly. In fact, everything
they have done, since the D. C. Circuit unanimously upheld the
judgment of monopoly, to increase their products' position in the
marketplace has undercut free and fair competition. I believe the
District Court should reject the proposed settlement and encourage
the settling states to join the non-settling states in continuing
the litigation until Microsoft is forced to change its behavior.
Harold L. Burstyn, Attorney-at-Law (NY & FL) and Registered Patent
Attorney 216 Bradford Parkway, Syracuse NY 13224-1767, tel. (315)
445-0620
MTC-00011263
From: Norman Plankey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am appalled by the current degree of ?justice? being levied in
the Microsoft anti-trust suit: does this current administration dole
out favors ONLY to the powerful and wealthy, while turning a blind
eye to the average American? I believe Ashcroft/Bush/Gates are
playing a dangerous game and the majority of Americans are fed-up
with big business calling the shots through government officials (in
the olden days, we used to call them ?elected officials? but that
too has become an arcane phrase). regards,
Norman Plankey
129 Good Hill Rd
Oxford, CT 06478
203-881-1390
MTC-00011264
From: Roy C. Dixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 25435]]
U.S. Department of Justice:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am submitting comments on the
United States v. Microsoft settlement. Please see the attached
Microsoft Word document that briefly summarizes the significant
costs of Microsoft's innovation to one of its customers.
In preparing this document I have tried to report only factual
details about the use of one of Microsoft's programming products and
not make any accusations on what development practices within
Microsoft were the basis for the problems experienced by this
customer.
Roy C. Dixon
Cary, North Carolina
MTC-00011264-0001
The purpose of this document is to relate how innovation by the
Microsoft Corporation has affected one of its customers. It will
focus on one Microsoft product, Microsoft Office, specifically
Microsoft Access 2000, and how Microsoft/Es innovation has resulted
in significant costs to this customer. The cost has been reflected
not only in terms of dollars, but also in ease-of-use and
performance.
The customer in this case is a church that needed a database
product to maintain information about its members. In the early
1990/Es, Microsoft introduced Access 2.0 at an introductory price of
$99.00, a price significantly below other database products. This
purchase proved to be a wise investment since Microsoft Access 2.0
was a very well designed product that was extremely easy to use. In
fact, the set of help menus offered by this product are unsurpassed
by any other programming product this author has used.
A Microsoft Access 2.0 database was designed by the author of
this document and deployed by the church on multiple computer
systems that were interconnected through a local area network. By
splitting the database into two components, an application component
and a data component, multiple members of the church staff could
each use a copy of the application component of the database at one
time and share the single copy of the data component of the
database. This is classically the way a Microsoft Access database is
deployed over a local area network.
During the 1990 decade, the church also used other Microsoft
Office products, Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, and Outlook
Express. Although some members of the church staff would of
preferred to use other competing products (the church secretary and
the associate pastor preferred Corel WordPerfect over Microsoft
Word), using only Microsoft products provided a level of
interoperability among the products that was not always possible
with using a collection of competing products. If the Microsoft
Corporation had defined and negotiated with its competitors a set of
common programming interfaces, the church would have had an option
to employ one or more competitor products in conjunction with it/Es
Microsoft Access database. Late in the decade the church was
compelled to upgrade their versions of Microsoft Word and Microsoft
Excel. Microsoft had released updated versions of their office
software, specifically Office 95 and Office 97, and the file data
formats were incompatible with the earlier version of Microsoft
Office that was being used by the church. Files received from
members of the church drafted in these newer versions could not be
read with the older Microsoft Office software. So the church was
obligated to upgrade the Microsoft Office software, even though the
old software completely suited the needs of the church staff.
At this time, Microsoft had just released Office 2000 and the
decision was made to upgrade to this new release. This included
updating Microsoft Access from 2.0 to 2000. This has since proven to
be a mistake. Microsoft Access 2000, a complete rewrite of the older
versions of Microsoft Access, is basically a very poor product. It
is extremely difficult to use as a design tool and the programming
interface is extremely complex. Furthermore, the help menus within
Microsoft Access 2000 and the other Microsoft Office 2000 programs
produce an overabundance of references for a given search (50 or
more is not uncommon), many of which have absolutely nothing to do
with the search topic. In this author/Es opinion, the Microsoft
Access 2000 product is basically unusable.
But a more serious problem is that to run Microsoft Access 2000
requires a computer system with a relatively high-speed processor
(at least 400 MHz) and a considerable amount of memory (at least 256
Megabytes) to provide an acceptable level of performance. This meant
that the church had to replace three of its four computers, an
expense that the church should not of occurred. One of the computers
was kept since it had been purchased in the previous year and
additional memory was added to this computer. Due to extremely poor
performance of Access 2000 over a local area network, the church
staff is still using Microsoft Access 2.0 on this one computer.
Fortunately in the past month, a church member has donated a
computer to the church that will allow the church staff to replace
this remaining computer system.
Given that the church can overcome the performance problems with
Microsoft Access 2000 by purchasing new computer systems does not
overcome the technical deficiencies within Microsoft Access 2000.
Specific concerns are programming services that have worked properly
within previous versions of Access, 2.0 and 97, but do not work
within Microsoft Access 2000. The author has stumbled on a handful
of such problems, all of which have been documented by Microsoft as
being known problems. The sidebar on this page illustrates one of
these problems. Now the church has decided to use the e-mail support
within Microsoft Access to send reports to its members over the
Internet. Once this service is made available to the church staff,
considerable savings will result due to reduced mailing costs. This
employs a programming statement called SendObject. This programming
statement works properly within Microsoft Access 2.0 and Access 97.
When executed within Microsoft Access 2000, however, the program
reports that an
illegal operation has been performed and the program shuts itself
down. Microsoft has documented this to be a problem within Access
2000 and has suggested a five-page code module to replace the
existing code that executes the SendObject statement (this problem
has been corrected in Microsoft Access 2002).
So the first question to be asked is why Microsoft failed to
detect this error during testing of Access 2000 and why have they
not supplied a program update to correct this problem? Furthermore,
the Microsoft Knowledge Base article referenced in footnote (
NOTEREF --Ref534630788 \h 7) contains the following qualifying
statements: ??The following code may not work properly if you have
installed the Outlook E-mail Security Update.?? ??If you have
limited programming experience, you may want to contact a Microsoft
Certified Partner or the Microsoft fee-based consulting line at
(800) 936-5200.0 ??NOTE: This code has only been tested by using
Microsoft Outlook as the MAPI client. It may not work with other
MAPI-enabled mail applications. Microsoft does not support the use
of this sample code with third- party MAPI applications.??
And thus the second question to be asked is why Microsoft, a
corporation that states its innovative practices are for their
customers/E benefit, would need to make such statements? The option
exists to invest in upgrading all the computers at the church to
Microsoft Office XP (i.e., Access 2002). Thus the church would again
be faced with paying Microsoft Corporation additional funds for
newer versions of programming products that have little value over
the older versions. Furthermore, the author will not only need to
upgrade his home computer with Microsoft Office XP, but will have to
purchase new versions of at least two development tools and more
than likely invest in a couple of new reference books. The author
believes that these development tools are critical in designing a
Microsoft Access database of any magnitude.
If the decision is made by the church staff to upgrade the
church computers to Microsoft Access 2002, the author will still
design and develop the church/Es database within a prior version,
probably Microsoft Access 97. This version of Access has proven to
be stable, usable, and provides a reasonable set of help menus.
Furthermore, the author already owns the Access 97 versions of the
development tools mentioned in the previous paragraph. This means
that the database will require conversion to Microsoft Access 2002
every time a new update is provided to the church. Based upon the
author/Es experience with converting a database to Microsoft Access
2000 this conversion process is not completely automatic, requiring
a number of manual changes and additions after the program completes
the conversion process.
Thus as the church migrates from the earlier versions of
Microsoft Access (2.0 and 97) to the later versions (2000 and 2002),
the following observations can be made: The performance of the
database program has decreased significantly. The usability of the
design interface to the program has decreased significantly. Some
original design and
[[Page 25436]]
programming constructs are specifically not
supported. Many new design and programming constructs have been
poorly implemented and tested. The usefulness of the help menus and
technical manuals has degenerated significantly. Services within the
database program interoperate with fewer supporting programs. Along
with the monetary expenses mentioned earlier, these are the ever-
recurring costs to a customer for Microsoft/Es innovation through
its Access database program product!
MTC-00011264-0003
Mike Gunderloy within his article on Access 2002 in the June
2001 issue of Smart Access states, ``Subform and subreport design is
also much improved in Access 2002 from Access 2000. For starters,
the scrollbars for a subform or subreport in design view now scroll
in increments small enough to be useful, making it possible to edit
subforms/reports in place without making you want to throw the
keyboard through the monitor.''
As an illustration of this deficiency, open Microsoft Access
2000 Help and perform a search for the SUM function. One obtains a
list of 137 references, none of which describe the SUM function. Or
do a search for the COUNT function. One obtains a list of 320
references, none of which to the author/Es knowledge describes the
COUNT function. The carton containing Microsoft Office 2000 states
that the system requirements for running under Windows 95 or 98 are
a PC with Pentium 75 MHz processor and 16 MB of RAM for the
operating system, plus an additional 4 MB of RAM running
simultaneously (8 MB for Outlook or Access). This is a considerable
understatement.
Complicating the performance issue was using WinProxy, a program
from Ositis Products, which allowed all the church computers to
simultaneously share a single dial-up connection to the Internet. It
was realized that WinProxy was causing a significant traffic load on
the local area network only after the church switched to a cable
modem for accessing the Internet. The author has been unable to
discover the reason behind this disruptive behavior. The author has
estimated that the performance of Microsoft Access 2000 over a local
area network is approximately ten percent the performance of the
same database running within Microsoft Access 2.0.
Please refer to the following two articles within Microsoft/Es
Knowledge Base (the first relates to Microsoft Access 2000 and the
second to Microsoft Access 97):
HYPERLINK ``http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q208364'' http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q208364
HYPERLINK ``http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q 155077'' http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q 155077 Please refer to the following
article within Microsoft/Es Knowledge Base:
HYPERLINK ``http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q260819'' http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q260819
Based upon private communications with Mike Gunderloy, author of
the Smart Access article mentioned in the first footnote, and Peter
Vogel, editor of Smart Access (http://
www.smartaccessnewsletter.com). The SendObject code module does not
work on the church/Es computers when running Microsoft Outlook
Express, only when running Microsoft Outlook. More importantly, the
code module does work on the church/Es server that is running
Microsoft Windows 2000, only on the other computers running
Microsoft Windows 98.
The two development tools are Speed Ferret by Black Moshannon
Systems (a global find and replace utility for all objects and code
within the database) and Total Access Analyzer by FMS (a database
analysis and documentation utility). Since the developers of these
tools just released their Microsoft Access 2000 versions, support of
Microsoft Access 2002 will probably not be available in the near
future.
Microsoft Access 2.0 was shipped with two technical manuals
thereby giving complete documentation on how to use the product.
Microsoft ships the Office XP product with little documentation.
This is a fundamental flaw. Preparing documentation on any product
is an excellent method for checking the logic and usability of a
product. The author through his Microsoft Access database
development activities has stumbled on many problems in support of
these observations. Only a limited number have been documented in
this paper to illustrate the problems.
MTC-00011264--0004
The church publishes a roster of members that contains a
subreport listing the e-mail addresses of the members. This
subreport is printed in two-column format like a phone book (names
are listed alphabetically starting in the first column and then
continuing in the second column). This formatting works within
Microsoft Access 2.0 but does not work in Microsoft Access 2000.
Furthermore, this formatting does not work in Microsoft Access 97.
Microsoft suggests the following resolution to this problem:
``To work around this behavior, follow these steps: (1) Open the
subreport in Design view. (2) On the File menu, click Page Setup.
(3) Click the Columns tab. (4) Under Column Layout, click Across,
then Down.'' This is not a work around! This is an entirely
different column layout, one that is not appropriate for a
telephone-book type of listing. Has this problem been corrected in
Microsoft Access 2002? Probably not is the author/Es guess.
August 23, 2000
To: Microsoft Freedom to Innovate Network
(HYPERLINK ``mailto:[email protected]'' [email protected])
Dear Microsoft,
Please stop your style of innovating! Your customers cannot
continue to absorb the significant costs to their computer systems
caused by your type of innovation.
Since purchasing Microsoft Office 2000, I had to purchase a new
sophisticated computer system just to run Access 2000 (Access 2.0
and Access 97 run perfectly well
on my old computer system). My church, using a Microsoft Access 2.0
database that I wrote, will have to endure the cost of replacing or
upgrading their existing computer systems in order to run a
Microsoft Access 2000 version of the database.
Bill Gates and others at Microsoft do not seem to have the
perspective to appreciate the problems they have caused. From what I
have read about the ruling in the antitrust suit against you, Judge
Thomas Jackson appears to understand and appreciate the problems
your style of innovating has imposed upon your customers, even
though he is has minimum expertise in computer science.
And compounding the issue, Microsoft Access 2000 is barely
usable from a programming perspective.
Microsoft Access 2.0 is one of the finest programs I have ever
used (and its help screens are unmatched by any other program).
Microsoft Access 2000 is one of the worst. Please stop your style of
innovating!
Regards, Roy C. Dixon
MTC-00011264-0005
MTC-00011265
From: Chengxia You
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:59am
Subject: The Microsoft case
The Microsoft case should be settled. The provisions of the
agreement are reasonable and fair. The settlement should be good for
the American economy and all parties.
Chengxia You, FNAI, Florida State University
1018 Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C
Tallahassee, Florida 32312, USA
Tel: 850/224-8207 ex 219
E-Mail: [email protected]
MTC-00011266
FROM: Dennis Whittaker
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/15/02 9:20am
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Whittaker
34 Jewett Hill, Berkshire, NY 13736
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
950 Penna. Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing in support of the settlement with Microsoft. The
changes it requires will restore fair competition and prevent future
antitrust violations.
Microsoft has agreed to release the interfaces that make Windows
work with software applications to competitors, meaning that other
companies can figure out how to better write programs for Windows.
Naturally, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or
hardware developers who develop or promote software that take
advantage of this new information. Plus, Microsoft has agreed not to
enter into any agreements that force third parties to distribute any
Windows technology exclusively. Clearly, these restrictions will
benefit the consumers as well as the technology sector as a whole.
This settlement is in the best interests of the State of New
York, The U.S., and the
[[Page 25437]]
economy because it will stop any
anticompetitive behavior before it starts. Continued litigation
against Microsoft will put millions of dollars into a case that has
already seen a fair and reasonable end. Let the IT industry
concentrate on busines as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Dennis Whittaker
MTC-00011267
From: James Sweetman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the government
does nothing to deter this arrogant behemoth from continuing to
bully the rest of the industry into doing its bidding. Microsoft has
a monopoly on the operating system level, and continues to illegally
extend this monopoly by requiring users to purchase unwanted
features. The settlement does nothing to address this, and will only
encourage Microsoft to continue its illegal acts.
James Sweetman
Arlington, VA
MTC-00011268
From: Seacrist, Ben
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Morning
I read somewhere that you all are looking for opinions on the
case involving Microsoft. If that is not the case please forgive me
for wasting your time with this e-mail.
If it is the case, then I'd like to voice my opinion.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Windows OS. My 98 crashes way
too often and XP is a joke (Windows 2000 saves the day, though, so I
am not totally anti-Windows). That being said however, I think
Microsoft being sued on anti-trust grounds is ridiculous. If the
Windows OS has a big share of the market, it's because it markets
its products better. Apple was doing years before what Windows does
now. However, thanks to Apple's not-so-savvy marketing and its
insistence on proprietary hardware (i.e. no Apple ``clones''), they
were not able to get a big chunk of the market. Enter IBM and its
slew of ``clones'', most using MS-DOS. Microsoft had a better market
saturation because it aligned itself with IBM, which allowed other
companies to mimic its hardware, meaning more people came in contact
with MS products. That's not Microsoft's fault. Heck, that's
capitalism pure and simple. To make Microsoft pay because it used
business sense while its competitors did not goes against the grain
of our system. Don't punish them because of our companies'
shortsightedness. Also, I've heard a lot of complaining about
Windows being shipped with Internet Explorer and that that was
unfair to other browser companies because it gave MS an unfair
advantage. Rubbish. I only recently started using IE on machine at
home and at work and only did that because Netscape kept crashing.
Windows does not force anyone to use Internet Explorer.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Ben
Bennett P. Seacrist--EDS @ Detroit Diesel Corporation
13400 W. Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48239
United States of America
Telephone/Telefon: (+001 313) 592.5189
Facsimile/Telefax: (+001 313) 592.7430
E-mail (EDS): [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]>
E-mail (DDC): bennett.seacrist@ detroitdiesel.com
mailto:bennett.seacrist@ detroitdiesel.com>
MTC-00011269
From: Wallis J Morgan Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a small businessperson involved in the specification and
development of computer software for businesses of all sizes, on a
regular basis I find the need to integrate solutions utilizing
software from a variety of vendors, including Microsoft. Because of
this I've found that solutions from Microsoft's competitors are
evaluated and selected just as often as those from Microsoft, at
least by the customers I support.
Although I have disagreed with the antitrust suit from the
beginning, I support Microsoft's position on the settlement, believe
it is fair and good for all involved.
Regards,
Wallis J Morgan Jr
databaseinternals
432 Glenmeade Court
Gretna, LA 70056
(504)296-4944 Voice
(504)392-3156 Fax
MTC-00011270
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Case
The Microsoft case is over, as far as the federal government is
concerned, and thank heaven for that. The national economy has
suffered enough, and its driving engine, the high tech industry, has
not been helped by the fact that one of its leading competitors has
been dragged into court for more than three years by the Justice
Department.
The settlement's provisions protect Microsoft's freedom to
innovate its products and will hopefully lead to a new era of
revitalized competition in the software market and other areas of
the technology economy. Consumers and investors will both benefit
from this settlement, and hopefully, it will be the last time the
government interferes with the high tech economy.
Allynn Howe
11005 Sweetmeadow Drive
Oakton, VA 22124
703-798-5627
MTC-00011271
From: Doyle E. Whitten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get this settled. Although some Microsoft programs
irritate me, nothing justifies the way Janet Reno and her justice
department went after Microsoft. What can be done to force the rest
of the states to agree to the settlement so we can get this over. I
do not like my tax dollars being spent to prosecute a lawsuit
against a company. It is time to get this over.
Doyle Whitten,
O'Fallon, Mo.
MTC-00011272
From: Terrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
Date: 11/22/01
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I strongly oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust case. Microsoft has been proven before the law to have
abused its monopoly powers and needs to be punished for that and
effective rules must be put in place to restore competition in the
marketplace. The recently publicized settlement does neither. Healty
competition, innovation, and consumer choice are ESSENTIAL to the
high-tech economy. The way I interpret the settlement it is full of
holes and will not stop Microsoft from steamrolling the competition
with unfair business practices and does nothing to prevent Microsoft
from gauging consumers for years to come.
In particular:
--Microsoft must be prohibited from engaging in excluse and
semi-exclusive agreements with any parties for any time period.
--Microsoft must not be allowed to provide financial or other
incentives to other parties for favoring Microsofts products over a
competitors product.
--Microsoft must not be allowed to bundle or cross-license its
products in any way.
--Microsoft must make public the programming interfaces to all
of its major products to allow competitors to implement meaningful
interoperability with Microsoft's products. Also, Microsoft must
notify all interested parties well in advance before it decides to
change any such interfaces and must make these changes available.
--Microsoft must be prohibited from breaking public technology
standards by adding proprietary and incompatible features to such
standards and then bundling this proprietary technology into
hundreds of millions of Windows platforms, thus creating a de-facto
standard that overrides the existing public standard.
No exemptions or loopholes can be allowed for the above rules if
meaningful relief is to be achieved.
I urge the court to understand the impact Microsoft's past
behavior has had on the high-tech marketplace. If Microsoft's
ruthless business practices continue unchecked the American economy
will pay an enormous penalty in the long run.
Microsoft should compete as much as it wants, but it must stop
doing so in an unfair manner. The proposed settlement does not
guarantee this in any way.
Sincerely,
Terrence Barr
20875 Valley Green Dr #27
[[Page 25438]]
Cupertino, CA 95014
MTC-00011273
FROM: Renee
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/15/02 9:44am
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to voice my concern on the recent events behind the
Microsoft Antitrust case. I am against any further government
action. What I do not understand is the punishing of Microsoft for
producing a quality product. Under our system of free enterprise, we
are free to purchase and use any computer products we wish. It just
so happens that Microsoft has created far better products than other
competing companies have been able to.
Can you imagine that use of the Internet by ordinary citizens
would have been possible without a common platform for
communications? In addition to the superior software Microsoft has
created, the company has created a niche in the marketplace that in
the past decade has brought a huge amount of growth to our economy,
not to mention the standardization of computer software programs
that have allowed computerization to become part of everyday life.
As an investment portfolio manager, I represent clients who have
invested hard-earned savings into American companies like Microsoft
whose financial success benefitted ordinary Americans willing to
invest in these companies. The additional litigation risk to
shareholders has risen dramatically in this country as tort lawyers,
including state Attorneys General, seek deep corporate pockets. It
is no coincidence that the peak in our financial markets coincided
with the Justice Department's announcement in March 3000 that it
would seek to break up Microsoft.
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights
to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs.
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to make it
easier for non-Microsoft software to be installed within Windows,
and Microsoft has even agreed to a technical committee to monitor
future compliance. I doubt if other firms would do as much. It is
shameful that companies like Microsoft should be punished for their
success-whatever happened to the American dream? I urge you to
support this settlement.
Sincerely, Renee' M. Smith
Sincerely,
Renee Smith
MTC-00011274
From: Greg HEck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft
To whom it may concern, as a long time user of Windows I feel as
a consumer I have been harmed by Microsoft's unlawful practices. As
they stem rolled or bought and abandoned technologies that I wanted
or needed these technologies just disappeared or ``evolved'' into
products from Microsoft that were less useful than the original
product. As I have been time and time again frustrated by Microsoft
and their practices I strongly urge you to prosecute Microsoft to
the full extent of the law.
Thank you
Greg Heck
MTC-00011275
From: R. Easley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:56am
Subject: Microsfot
I think enough of the taxpayers money has been spent on trying
to punish Microsoft for being successful!
The economic downturn started about the time DOJ jumped into
Microsofts case?
And by the way, where was DOJ when ENRON was stealing from just
about everyone?
Best get your priorities right
R.V. Easley
PO box 54
Loon Lake, WA 99148
509-233-2950
MTC-00011276
From: Mark McKay
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been following the case and am dismayed that the
settlement does not go far enough. It does not address Microsoft
leveraging it's monopoly to severely damage other web browser
manufacturers (such as netscape), nor it's attempt to destroy the
Java programming language. The settlement leaves the door wide open
for Microsoft to continue to use technical nasty tricks embedded in
it's operating system and closed protocols that do nothing but make
it more difficult for non-Microsoft companies to compete.
I would encourage the plantiffs in this case to reconsider and
leverage more effective and severe penalties against Microsoft.
Mark McKay
MTC-00011277
From: Barry Baumbaugh
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02 9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barry Baumbaugh
12032 Timberline Trace North
Granger, IN 46530
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barry Baumbaugh
MTC-00011278
From: artsieber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The remedy should some how benefit the people that are damaged.
The consumer is the injured party. How about making Microsoft
provide free 800 number tech support for all past and present
windows users. A lot of tech companies that still have compition
offer this. I as a consumer never ever buy hardware or software that
does not offer free tech support by phone. Except of course
Microsoft products cause I DO NOT HAVE ANY CHOICE.
MTC-00011279
From: David F. Schreck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:12am
Subject: Public Comment on Antitrust Settlement with Microsoft
I feel that it is in the best interest of all parties to settle
this suit now.
Thanks, Dave
MTC-00011280
From: Micheal Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Though it would never happen, it sure would be nice to have at
least a semblance of choice in the OS market.
I would love to use an IBM version of XP, heh. Even an AOL
version, Compaq, HP, any first to third tier manufacturer would be
able to license Windows to make their own version. Microsoft would
still make money on licensing fee's, still have over site control of
the standards, and we would at least be able to honestly pretend to
have a choice in OS's.
Micheal Anderson
Edge Computer Games
1245 Woodmere Ave.
Traverse City, MI. 49686
231-932-4263 voice 231-932-2441 fax
http://www.edgecomputergames.com
MTC-00011281
From: Howard Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25439]]
Date: 1/15/02 10:23am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I REALLY THINK ITS A DISGRACE, HOW MICROSOFT HAS BEEN HOUNDED,
BULLIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IF THEY HAD PUT AS MUCH EFFORT
INTO FIGHTING TERRORISM, THE WORLD TRADE DISASTER MAY HAVE NOT
HAPPENED. THE SETTLEMENT REACHED BY THE MICROSOFT AND THE GOVERNMENT
WAS ``OVERLY'' GENEROUS. ITS JUST PLAIN GREED AND POLITICS NOW, FOR
ANYONE PURSUING ANYMORE FROM MICROSOFT. ITS MICROSOFT'S ``SOUR
GRAPE'' COMPETATERS WHO ARE PURSUING THIS OUTRAGE.
HOWARD C. PETERSON
907 VANCE ST N
WILSON, NC 27893-2917
252-237-1228
MTC-00011282
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am transmitting the attached letter which contains my views
regarding the Microsoft case.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Simpson
10 Portage Place
Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to ask that you settle the Justice Department's
lawsuit against Microsoft after this comment period. The case has
dragged on with absolutely no favorable results. It is time to put
the matter to rest.
I know firsthand that the Justice Department's action against
the company affects more than the company itself. It affects the
entire technology sector. Ending the antitrust case under the terms
of the settlement seems like the best way to resolve the matter
quickly and to everyone's approval. The settlement is fair, and
enforceable. It rearranges the way Microsoft does business in
virtually every aspect, from engineering and design to licensure and
marketing. Any continued action against Microsoft will unfairly
impede their progress and ability to continue developing innovative
technology. Please end the case as soon as possible.
Thank you for considering my views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Simpson
MTC-00011283
From: Jim McGurrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
Please do consumers a huge favor and DO NOT leave the language
of Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) as is. If you really are
interested in promoting competition and innovation, level the
playing field by allowing open source software to compete
unobstructed by Microsoft's interpretation of ``business criteria''.
If there is ANY competition for Microsoft at all--it is in the open
source world, specifically linux. Microsoft is fully aware of this
and the DOJ is not playing their oversight role if language such as
this is left in the settlement.
As a side note, it is naive to allow Microsoft to extend their
monopoly by allowing, as a ``remedy'', the putting of their software
in our school systems for 5 years. This will damage Apple and others
and not Microsoft at all, and it is not doing those school systems
or the kids any where near the good spending that same level of
money on other technologies (ie open source). Take a hard look at
RedHat's counter proposal to provide ALL school systems the software
and support.
Please take do not rush to ``clear'' this case in an effort to
``jump start'' the tech sector with a pro-microsoft remedy. This is
a crucial time in our industry and decisions here will set the
direction of our industry (stagnant monopoly dominated or vibrant
competitive diversity) for the next ten years at least, and like
dog-years, ten tech years are like 70 normal years in terms of the
effect on economy wide productivity growth.
If allowed to compete on a level playing field, Linux is a
viable competitor to Microsoft, but if linux is to really have a
chance to compete for the desktop then it needs to be seen as having
a chance of success so that software vendors will put resources into
writing applications targeted for linux--without fear of reprisal
from Microsoft.
Thank-you
MTC-00011284
From: Carol Hemmen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attention: Renate B. Hesse
My comment is this---This settlement should have ended a long
time ago. It it weren't for the Attorney Generals of seven states-
one of which I am sad to say that I am a resident of- continually
wanting to bring charges against Microsoft, it would have been
settled. I do not know what these ``seven'' think they will
accomplish. What is wrong with competition?
It sounds more like a vendetta than anything else. Money spent
in court with charges against Microsoft could be spent in so many
better ways. Accept what Microsoft has offered and get on with life.
Carol Hemmen--An Iowa resident.
MTC-00011285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The suit against Microsoft should be dropped outright by the
Federal Government. It was instituted by the previous administration
in Washington as repayment for campaign contributions given by AOL,
Oracle, at that time, Netscape and others. There is not now and
there never has been a monopoly in operating systems. People who buy
computers are free to install any operating system they wish or to
buy a computer with the system preinstalled. Preference does not
make a monopoly.
Technology in recent years has been a blessing for this country
and due to companies such as Microsoft we have been on the leading
edge. Are there people in Washington who would prefer that in
addition to most computers being manufactured in Red China the
operating systems should also be? I think the downturn in the NASDAQ
is directly related to the Microsoft suit and should serve as a shot
across our bow.
MTC-00011286
From: wgstelenet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
American Outback
N 43.7 W 74.916
Box 270 South Shore Road
Old Forge, NY 13420-0270
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my support for the settlement with
Microsoft. The settlement is in the best interests of the state, the
American IT industry, and the economy. The recession has had a
devastating effect on state budgets and the Federal budget. It is
important that the technology industry be allowed to concentrate on
business now.
The settlement imposes a broad series of restrictions on
Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer
makers who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows
operating system. Also, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers on
identical terms, including price. In addition, Microsoft has agreed
to document and disclose for use by its competitors various
interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating system products--
a first in an antitrust settlement. This agreement will clearly
benefit both consumers and the American IT industry as a whole. This
settlement is both fair and reasonable, and it will prevent future
anticompetitive behavior. The sooner the technology sector gets back
to business as usual, the better. Wasting more time and money on
further litigation is a bad idea.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincere regards,
W. Shaw
MTC-00011288
From: Kris Bredemeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft Settlement is a setback towards fostering
competition in the marketplace. Microsoft has used its monopoly
powers to leverage licensing terms
[[Page 25440]]
on its customers that are punitive towards users.
The Windows product activation system is a violation of users
right to privacy as a hash of users computer systems is sent to
Microsoft. This is the most abusive company to its competitors I
have ever seen and because of its monopoly powers it has been able
to engage in such conduct unchecked. The only effective way to
combat this problem is to split the Microsoft corporation into an
operating system company, an office and other software company, and
an internet company.
MTC-00011289
From: ray winn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen I believe strongly that the Microsoft
Settlement be rendered as quickly as possible.
Further litigation will create continued deterioration for all
concerned, and most importantly the American public. Let's please
get our total focus on rebuilding the economic foundation of our
country instead of to weaken it further. A possible first step might
be a self introspection by the DOJ. Thank You, Ray Winn
MTC-00011290
From: margaret jarrard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:48am
Subject: microsoft settlement
In the interest of the public, people like me, settle the
Microsoft issue as soon as possible. I would like to remind you that
big business and big government is not the people, although they
claim to have our interests at heart. There is just too much
politics in the Microsoft settlement issue and I see no reason to
prolong the settlement. Our economy as well as everyday folks will
benefit most from the settlement of the current agreement. Thanks
for your diligence. Margaret Jarrard
MTC-00011291
From: Antworks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposal settlement for Microsoft's transgressions would
seem to be self-serving and, if implemented, would bring about an
unanticipated result. The better settlement would be for Microsoft
to provide the designated funding to the schools and to permit the
schools to make the determination as to which equipment best meets
their needs.
Richard McMains
4180 S. Ranch Road
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650
MTC-00011292
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:51am
Subject: microsoft settlement
The proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitust case is
plainly no more than a slap on the wrist and a reprimand to ``play
nice''. Mr Gates wont be losing any sleep over this judgement as it
is nothing more than an inconvenience in his journey to dominate the
software market to an extent where there is no option on which
operating system to use for a computer system.
I feel this whole case will have been a complete waste of the
taxpayers money.
MTC-00011293
From: Johnson, William
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fails to include other Microsoft software products such as
Micorsoft Office which regularly uses interfaces (APIs) that are not
provided to other developers of Office products. While Micorsoft
Office is not technically a middleware program, the judgement should
be expanded to include all Micorosoft software products that have
inteface access that either is not available to non-Microsoft
software deveopers or is made available after the last beta of a new
version of the Windows operating system
Fails to provide any remedy (fines that double in size on every
reoccurance of the same problem and increase in size by 50% for each
month after 90 days that Micorsoft fails to provide a solution to
any single problem/short term incarceration for the group leader or
any higher Microsoft officer who either verbally, or via e-mail or
written note tells a product group to do something that violates any
reported compliant that the TC determines is meritorious or any TC
proposal for a cure on a date that is one week or later than the TC
reported its finding to the Micorsoft Compliance officer) should
such a failure be found again in the future!
Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft
was found to have illegally protected. It also fails to provide any
remedy like fines paid by Microsoft that are given to the company
that documents a case against Microsoft. Microsoft should also have
to reemburse the company for all documented expenses related to
collecting, preparing and reporting the compliant that are
reasonable and not deemed excessive by a court apppointed
arbitrator.
Fails to force Bill Gates and the current CEO of Microsoft who
both are billionares due to their creation of a monopoly to pay any
fines. At a minimum, they should personally be forced to reimburse
the federal government and all state governemnts for their costs in
this case. In addition, punative damages should be paid to a fund
that could be used to provide seed money to software developers who
wish to enter the market. This would be a significant step in
addressing the barriers that Micorsoft created in the past.
Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology
community. Microsoft should be forced to provide a mechanism like
the Control Panel Add/Remove program that makes it easy for
customers to add the latest Java Virtual Machine and Browser plug in
to any and all Windows Operating Systems. In addition Microsoft
should be forced to provide to the Java developement community any
additional interfaces that are provided to any middleware or other
Microsoft product in such a fashion that the Java Community
deems is necessary to make Java use of the interface efficient. As
an example, DCOM works best with C++ or C# or .Net. It has data
types that are not easily mapped into Java Objects/types. Thus we as
a software developement company were forced to purchase a product
from JIntegra that wrapped our C++ data structures with Java code.
Even after purchasing JIntegra, the effort was so difficult that we
paid the JIntegra company to provide one of their software experts
to assist in the work. Even with the help of the expert, we had to
rewrite our C++ code to use simpler data strctures than the original
code. Even now, we are limited to the set of types that the JIntegra
expert successfully wrapped. This extra barrier to Java developers
who want to use DCOM to communicate to a C++ DLL that runs on a
remote server needs to be eliminated. Microsoft should be fined
every month after 90 days that it fails to provide a solution or at
least provide a team of twelve developers who at Microsoft expense
are dedicated to working with the Java developement community to
eliminate this barrier and any additional barriers reported to the
Java development community by members of the community.
Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market. Why is their
no fine paid by Microsoft to the court and then paid by the court to
Netscape? Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of
middleware programs including browsers, media players, and instant
messaging software into the monopoly Windows operating system.
Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
MTC-00011294
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clearly great care effort and energy is the hallmark of the last
year of this issue. As it should be: a new technology in a new time.
However it s time to move on: let Microsoft return full focus to its
entrepeneurial roots--for shared collaborative benefit--from schools
to our economy.
MTC-00011295
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs Please do not allow the criminals running Microsoft to
continue to illegally bilk consumers and use their ill gotten gains
to quash any legitimate competition. The settlement should cost
Microsoft at least $10 billion real dollars and prevent them from
quashing competition in the future. JDR
MTC-00011296
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I send this note in the hope that the government s case against
Microsoft will be closed with not further action. I do not
[[Page 25441]]
believe action should have been taken in the first place
and certainly no further action should be taken at this time.
MTC-00011297
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree with the government interfereing with the
innovations of a company just because their competitors believe it
is unfair. The lawsuit against microsoft becuase some people think
they are charging too much for software is rediculous. If you
compare the cost of products and/or services from other software/
service vendors you will see that Microsoft is right inline with
market standards. The complaint of competitors that Microsoft ties
or bundles software with and operating system is simply laughable.
Since when does a consumer complain when they get a free add-on for
a product they purchased. It is like saying that a car manufacturer
cannot install Goodyear tires on a car because maybe a consumer will
not want them. If you dont want to use the feature then dont. AOL I
believe is more guilty of poor software than any other vendor I know
of.
MTC-00011298
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Microsoft settlement is more than fair for
all involved. Please let s settle this in move on.
Peter Holland
MTC-00011299
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The previous administration made a grave error of listening to
Microsoft s competitors who wished to KNOCK MICROSOFT S SOX OFF .
Unfortunately not only did the government s decision to HIT
MICROSOFT WITH A STIFF PENALITY bring down Microsoft s stock but it
crumbled the entire Tech Market. NM is a Democrat state and WE THE
PEOPLE had to voice in NM s decision to side with the Government in
slamming Microsoft. A few top Democrats in this state made that
decision ! MY REQUEST FOR YOU IS TO MAKE A QUICK SETTLEMENT WITH
MICROSOFT ONE IN WHICH MICROSOFT CAN AGREE. My news media tells me
that Microsoft has offered $1 000 000.00 for computers to be placed
in POOR schools. Again Microsoft s competitors are screaming unfair
. If their products were as good as Microsoft s they wouldn t have
to CRUSH private enterprise. After all America was built on THE
ENTREPRENEUR making good in private industry.
MTC-00011300
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As the head of a company that started out selling IBM s OS/2 I
know for a FACT that the emergience of Windows in the OS wars was
due to the terrible performance of IBM s marketing department and
its treatment of ISVs. IBM s attempt to dominate the PC marketplace
was far far more egregious than what MSFT did and once again I know
I was there in the thick of that war . We are nhot even talking
about Apple which tried to own the whole space of desktop computing
by owning both the hardware and the solftware. I shake my head when
I see who is doing the complaining against Microsoft! With regard to
its supposed Monopoli today we as resellers are only too acutely
ware of how tenous the grip of any technology is on a marketplace
especially Microsoft s whose reputation is constantly being
threatened by reports of bugs and other attackcs. I firmly believe
that a new technology could easily displace a Microsoft technology
either in the OS or in the applications arena. Microsoft s success
is due to its pleasing of the customer and the channel. While I did
not believe that Microsoft should have ever even been charged by the
Department of Justice (for which I once worked) I most strongly urge
anyone there to take into consideration my experience and views and
approve the settlement that has been proposed.
Paolo
MTC-00011301
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I Think its a Fair Deal for all. I am for the settlement the way
it is. 1-14-02
MTC-00011302
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement is fair and equitable as it stands.
MTC-00011303
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support Microsofts resolution to the Anti-Trust case of
providing technology to schools. Taking Microsoft back to court and
paying judgements to customers (which will amount to a pittance)
benefits only lawyers.
MTC-00011304
From: peter.heinen@homestreet bank.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is more than fair. To my knowledge no one
has shown any harm to the consumer.
This whole law suit is a sham. The public is not even behind it.
Who is? SUN Oracle!
MTC-00011305
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For the sake of technology and the US economy please make the
remaining states
come to an agreement with Microsoft. I feel that these lawyers are
going for the money just like they did when they targeted big
tobacco. Microsoft has done a lof of good for technology and we all
know that Microsoft has done a lot of good for the economy. With the
events of Sept. 11th I would think that the government would be more
interested in getting the economy up and running again instead of
this relentless pursuit of Microsoft and its billions!
MTC-00011306
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The politically motivated attack on Microsoft has probably done
more to damage the technology sector of the stock market than any
other event. Competetors of Microsoft are angry because they
actually have to produce a superior product in order to stay in
business. There are very few end users of Microsoft that are anxious
to see the company damaged. Who is the government trying to protect?
End users or competitors? Dr. Charles Ivie Director R&D Dermaprobe
International
MTC-00011307
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please urge the dissenting states to give up the assault on
Microsoft. They should be thankful for the agreement to the
settlement by a company whose violations are unclear at best.
MTC-00011308
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
msft stick to your guns & keep your powder dry.
MTC-00011309
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP HARRASING MICROSOFT AND OTHER BUSINESS.
THE PEOPLES NEEDS ARE NOT BEING ATTENDED TO WHEN LEGISLATER ARE
HOLDING HEARINGS THAT ARE A WASTE OF TIME. MICROSOFT AS WELL AS
OTHER BUSINESS S OFFER A PRODUCT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IT.
MTC-00011310
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough already-Stop the insanity! The settlement while not
perfect should be agreed upon. I am the Public and I will decide
what is in my good .
MTC-00011311
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25442]]
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The law suit against Microsoft has done enough damage. For the
good of all Americans please do not pursue this issue any further.
MTC-00011313
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Abolish the Sherman anti-trust Act as it is unconstitutional and
un-American. Allow the consumer to deal with the likes of Microsoft.
MTC-00011314
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settling this ongoing series of lawsuits is in the best interest
of the country and the free enterprise system. The economy will
benefit from concluding this suit.
MTC-00011315
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case is a simple matter of some less than
successful businessmen and marketers going crying to Congress who
being equally inept started an anti-trust suit. Being big and
successful is NOT a monopoly. The consumer decides what to buy and
if the product is so much better than any competition then the
product succeeds. Nobody not Microsoft nobody FORCED anybody to do
anything. The OEM s had an option other software and PC makers
failed to compete so they went crying for help and the Congress in
it s infinite stupidity obliged them. The settlement is not fair
because it never should have come to this in the first place. But
given the fact that the age of litigation being what it is this is
the best a true free spirit and entrepreneur can hope for. Without
Bill Gates and the Microsoft enterprise the computer world and
millions of jobs would NOT be around today or at least be years
behind where we are now. Why do so many people and the Congrees
resent free success??
MTC-00011316
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While one one hand I am pleased that this anti-trust case is
finally over with but on the other hand I am very disappointed in
the actions of the government of this country. In my opinion the
software playing field has always been more than fair. Microsoft is
more or less being punished for putting out a consistently and above
average product. Isn t this supposed to be meaning of capitalism or
what is known as the American way? You manufacture a good product
and it sells. You manufacture a product of poor or below average
quality and you will not be able to compete with the companies who
manufacture the higher quality software. The founders of this once
great country of ours would without a doubt wonder what has happened
to the once fair and impartial government of which they had formed
and had dreamed of not so long ago. A company which has done so much
for the American economy and made it the home of high tech jogs gets
a kick in the teeth by it s own government. The future of the
Microsoft company will most likely end up like the automobile
industry and move it s headquarters overseas and I couldn t say that
I would blame them if they did. This whole anti-trust case has been
an embarrasment to this country and what it used to stand for.
MTC-00011317
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The action against Microsoft is a crime against free enterprise.
No settlement can erase the shame and sham that the US Govt has
forced on the American consumer. You took a few nearly failing and
crybaby businesses and presumed to use them as an excuse to speak
for the consumer when in fact very few consumers feel that a
successful free enterprise albeit quite large business is a
monopoly. You have over stepped and abused your power and should be
ashamed.
MTC-00011318
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has always strived to make my job as a programmer
easier throughout my career. This company doesn t deserve the
treatment it is getting from the government and its jealous
competitors. The settlement that has been reached should be accepted
and Microsoft should be left alone to continue innovating and making
computers users lives easier. Where would we be today without
Microsoft s contributions? Most likely still in the computer dark
ages.
MTC-00011319
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If the Federal Government and the Microsoft Corp. have reached
an agreement then why should the States keep this dreary affair
going on and on? Let s get back to business and bring this economy
back to a strong growth rate.
MTC-00011320
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Time to back off Microsoft and let them go about the business of
makeing mony for there stock holders.
MTC-00011321
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nearly three years ago I wrote you a letter protesting the
unwarranted intrusion of the DOJ into the competitive free
enterprise system. The DOJ has cost the American tax payors tens of
millions in its frivilous legal action. It is now time to terminate
litigation and allow the settlement to go forward without further
delay. Thank you.
MTC-00011322
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir: The action against Microsoft has gone on long
enough.It is taking tax payers money and the copmpany is being
persecuted. They have bent over backwards to be fair to all parties.
Now stop the greediness of those opposed to settlement. Since this
suit has taken place the economy has suffered before 911.
Sincerely
Theresa A. Taylor
MTC-00011323
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I guess this settlement is the best that we can hope for. There
is no way that Justice Department should have initiated this silly
innovation- and economy-squashing suit in the first place. Can we
now at least please drop the matter and get on with letting the real
engines of progress take their rightful positions of leadership in
the world? Please?
MTC-00011324
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the settlement. I watched the government waste
millions & I mean millions of $ s on the IBM case. It s a hellofa
price to pay for all round excellence
MTC-00011325
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is a sad day when you build a better mouse trap and the mice
get the government to sue you for it. If they can t handle the
competition let them stay out of the business Jack Thompson
MTC-00011326
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I guess I just do not understand the statement by the Judge
saying the Microsoft requested settlement would cause a competitive
edge for them. Apple has had the competitive edge with education and
printing for years. Their equipment is VERY expensive. The attorneys
for the states that are holding out on the Microsoft settlement are
the states with companys that have their business or sattelites in
those state. It appears the attorneys for these states have
successfully convinced the judge to throw
[[Page 25443]]
out the proposed
settlement. A totally political move. I would very much like to have
someone explain to me why AOL/Time Warner is NOT a MONOPOLY. And
prove to me that this lawsuit is NOT political.
Please respond. Thank you for the opportunity to express my
thoughts. Gerald Dentz
MTC-00011327
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case and stop harrassing the best US
corporation. These delays will cost us all money and allow the rest
of the world to catch up. We should be supporting Microsoft as the
whole world relies on their great software.
MTC-00011328
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone. They have provided many jobs and
technology to our nation also helping schools and many various
programs. Please end these lawsuits. The lawyers are the ones
getting rich over this while people are being put out of work
because of a silly lawsuit. I bet giving a choice 99 percent of the
people would use Microsoft over any other program. I say it is a
choice you can use it or not. If you don t like Microsoft don t use
any of their products but don t sue over it. It is just as simple as
that. And other companies are just greedy as they didn t have the
brains like Bill Gates to figure out all of this. I say give the guy
credit for all he has done and invented. It amazes my mind what he
has done to make it easy to communicate with the world and to type
letters without carbon paper and to erase easy.
And to figure out computer programs. Guess this gives you a clue
to my age. We have come a long ways thanks to Bill Gates. By keeping
on with the lawsuits you make it hard for them to innovate so please
get put an end to the lawsuits.
Thanks Joyce Siemens
MTC-00011329
From: Hartmann, George J.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a individual I want the Government to settle with Microsoft.
I therefore support the Department of Justice on its proposed
antitrust settlement.
Regards,
George Hartmann
CC:Hartmann George J.
MTC-00011330
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:55am
Subject: my opinion on the Microsoft Case
1. Actually, I am tired of it and fairly fed up with the
procedure that has taken a well-run free trade business and
practically brought it to its knees. As if it isn't hard enough to
make a go of a business, the government steps in to slap their hand
becuase of the belly aching of companies that are jealous of its
success.
2. Perhaps Microsoft did create a situation where the
competition didn't have as good a chance at succeeding, but they
also did a lot to bring the common housewife like me into the 21st
century. I am glad there is a Microsoft--and a Bill Gates. He built
the empire and we came. And we love him for it.
3. I don't know Bill Gates and he has never heard of me and
probably the sun will set on me before this thing ends....at this
rate. Please, let him go back to doing his business so we can ALL
prosper. Good management--taking care of his employees and giving us
the tools we need to get our jobs done...isn't that the American
way?
4. Some businesses, like Enron, didn't need the Government's
help to do a miserable job and at getting into a mess. Get the
Government out of Bill's business and let him finish the work he
started. Slap his hands just a little if you have to do something,
but do it and get it over with so we can all go forward.
5. All of this business with the unfair advantage happened so
many years ago--in a different business climate. The Government
should be shaking the man's hand instead of slapping it for doing
the American dream....and for helping us live the American dream.
If you wish to reach me for any other comments, my name is
Alice Van de Water
1694 San Leandro Lane
Santa Barbara, CA 93108
(805) 969-4438
I am 59 years old and have never personally purchased any
Microsoft stock. I own 800 shares, which my husband bought in about
1994 or 1995--he passed away about 3 and a half years ago. I also
own Microsoft in my Keogh--and I believe another financial advisor
purchased some for another account I have. Obviously, I want the
stock to do well, but my comments are from my heart, not from my
pocketbook.
MTC-00011331
From: Harry Crowell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 10:58am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please stop this viscious lawsuit. Too many people have suffered
because of the expensive method of persecution of an enterprising
young American. My business,as have most of our country and others
across the entire world,have benefitted greatly because of the great
work and improvements to the ability to access valuable information
and store records.
Please stop this foolish destruction of the principles that made
America the place it is.
MTC-00011332
From: Cynthia Grossen
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement excerpt from Complaint
``5. To protect its valuable Windows monopoly against such
potential competitive
threats, and to extend its operating system monopoly into other
software markets, Microsoft has engaged in a series of
anticompetitive activities. Microsoft's conduct includes agreements
tying other Microsoft software products to Microsoft's Windows
operating system; exclusionary agreements precluding companies from
distributing, promoting, buying, or using products of Microsoft's
software competitors or potential competitors; and exclusionary
agreements restricting the right of companies to provide services or
resources to Microsoft's software competitors or potential
competitors.''
My biggest problem with ``the way things are now'' is that as it
stands, I can not buy a computer from a large computer seller, like
DELL, MICRON, BestBuy, Circuit City, etc without being forced to
purchase the bundled M$ software; even if I have no interest in
every utilizing said software.
Also, it is my understanding that most of these venders are
prohibited from offering ``dual-boot'' systems as well, as part of
their OEM license agreement with M$. Which would be a `second-best'
solution to the above problem, from my standpoint at least. I do
realize that their are legitimate market concerns as well, such as
poor customer demand. But I find it difficult to believe that the
fact that M$ owns the OS market (read monopoly here) doesn't play
into my concerns in a significant way. I feel that this area is one
of crucial importance to future remedies. The browser arguments are
extremely compelling and should definitely play into the settlement.
But the ``Browser War' is effectively over. M$ won.
MTC-00011333
From: Mary Euyang Shen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get on with it so that we can give the economy a small
nudge upward.
Mary Shen
MTC-00011334
From: Rob Alelyunas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings;
I am a professional software developer very familiar with the
Microsoft products and strategy, as well as many other software
platforms such as Java, UNIX, and Internet development. For many of
us in the software industry, the proposed settlement with Microsoft
looms as a terrible mistake. Many of the reasons why have been very
well illuminated by far better communicators than myself, and these
reasons tend to emphasize the failure of the settlement to address
the actual abuses and illegal practices that were proven in the
case. They emphasize that the remedy has no enforcement, and is
unlikely to stop the proven illegal practices.
But my concern is the effect that the proposed settlement has
had upon the software community, and the business community at
large. That is a chilling effect. New software projects have been
canceled, software innovation has been put on hold in
[[Page 25442]]
many cases,
and new initiatives have trouble getting funding. That is because
the settlement is a signal that the marketplace won't reward the
small, energetic innovators such Netscape or Real Media. Companies
like this, although they have virtually invented and innovated new
capabilities that enrich our lives, will not be set free to compete
on an equal footing. The behemoth of Microsoft will be allowed to
wait for these smaller companies to innovate, then it will bundle
carbon copies of their products into its operating system, and if
necessary use other illegal monopoly practices such as punitive
exclusive relationships with hardware manufacturers.
I ask you honestly, would anyone want to invest in a small
innovative software company in this climate? No matter what quality,
energy, excellence is in the product, there cannot be profitability
as long as Microsoft is free to illegally compete. Investors and the
business community are very aware of the Microsoft settlement. And
it has already had a chilling effect on innovation and investment.
It has had a chilling effect on the American economy. It is a loud,
clear signal that discourages investment in small business just as
it discourages new ventures.
This is not a good time to be discouraging small business which
is the growth engine of our economy. Now of all times we need to
carefully consider the effects of our decisions on the economy.
There are reasons for the anti-trust laws, and there are reasons to
enforce them. Amercian business operating under effective anti-trust
enforcement has created the greatest growth and innovation engine
the world has ever known. The key is competition, and anti-trust
laws are the protectors of competition. Let's have the courage to
enforce the law.
Rob Alelyunas
MTC-00011335
From: Nicholas Dronen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I make my living as a computer programmer and work with
Microsoft products every day. I believe the proposed Microsoft
settlement will not prevent the company from continuing to act as it
has in the past. The U.S. government has had agreements with
Microsoft in the past, and they have had little effect. I assert
that allowing this or that hardware vendor to put such-and-such icon
on the desktop of a Microsoft operating system does little or
nothing to prevent the company from using its monopoly of the
desktop operating system market to insinuate itself in a rather
forthright way into other markets.
Moreover, I fail to see how allowing interested parties to
examine the source code of some Microsoft software will solve this
problem. At most such a regime will give some well-funded start-up
companies and successful competitors of Microsoft (that is, those
firms which can afford to send a software engineer to Redmond to
spend time reading code) a useful tidbit of information here and
there. Since the company's positions in its current markets (and
some future ones as well) have not diminished (rather, they have
con- tinued to increase market share), it is clear that the company
now has even less of an incentive to follow antitrust law than it
did before.
Whether Microsoft should merely be punished for its role in the
fate of Netscape Communications, Inc., is debatable. I personally
think it is irrelevant and that the important matter is to restore
equity in competition in the computer industry now and into the
future. The proposed settlement does not ensure this; therefore, it
should be rejected.
Kind Regards,
Nicholas Dronen
[email protected]
Computer Programmer
Boulder, Colorado
MTC-00011336
From: Ella Tidwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I support President Bush in his desire to settle this lawsuit
and persecution of Microsoft. Ella Tidwell
4298 US Highway 641 South
Hazel, KY 42049
MTC-00011337
From: Jim Fuqua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
The time has come for this case to be settled and now. The axe
grinders have delayed this long enough.
Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Jim Fuqua, A
concerned citizen of the US of A
MTC-00011338
From: Benjamin W. Ritcey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
The Remedy section of the proposed Microsoft settlement lets
Microsoft off far too lightly; what seems like fair and open access
to Microsoft's APIs, Documentation and Communications Protocols has,
in fact, a critical loophole--I can put this no better than Robert
Cringly (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html):
``...Microsoft's greatest single threat on the operating system
front comes from Linux--a non-commercial product--and it faces a
growing threat on the applications front from Open Source and
freeware applications. The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet
Information Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache
Foundation, a not-for-profit. Apache practically rules the Net,
along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come from non-
profits. Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all
under the proposed settlement. It is as though they don't even
exist.
Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not
describe nor license API, Documentation, or
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization
to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business:
``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business, ...''
So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to
effectively kill these products. Section III(D) takes this
disturbing trend even further. It deals with disclosure of
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft
``middleware.'' In this section, Microsoft discloses to Independent
Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs),
Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs),
and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed
to inter-operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in
the footnotes at the legal definitions for these outfits, we find
the definitions specify commercial concerns only. `` The business
climate has changed a bit from the time the Tunney Act was
introduced--one does not have to pursue a profit in order to be a
competitor. By excluding not-for-profit organization, the Settlement
protects Microsoft from their greatest threat, and allows them to
continue to stifle innovation.
I urge you to, at the very least, remove these critical
loopholes.
Regards,
Benjamin Ritcey
MTC-00011339
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:16am
Subject: microsoft Microsoft is a monopoly.
They are not changing their behaviour as witnessed by their new
Passport and Hailstorm technologies.
They should be split into OS and Other Software
Carol McDonald
MTC-00011340
From: sam travis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I for one, cannot believe that the department of JUSTICE is even
considering letting Micro$oft off the hook so easily! This is the
company that has lied and misled the courts at every turn! I am
shocked! Shocked and appalled that a corporation can engage in such
blatantly monopolistic behavior, and walk away with a comparative
slap on the wrist. Having been involved with the personal computer
industry essentially since its' inception, I have been witness to
the most egregious violations, and would like justice to truly be
done.
MTC-00011341
From: Tor-Oyvind Gundersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Since I'm a Norwegian citizen, I assume I don't have a right to
comment this case. But I just can't sit still looking at
injustice... As a professional IT developer, I would just like
[[Page 25445]]
to say one thing: The way Microsoft has chosen,
is not a way the world
should be going-- please get the world back on the right track.
Thanks for your time.
Regards,
Tor-Oyvind Gundersen
[email protected]
MTC-00011342
From: Harold McClarnon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
HAROLD McCLARNON
310 Westwood Drive Grants Pass,
OR 97527
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
Thank you for your efforts to settle the Microsoft antitrust
case. This case was not brought because it had merit, but as a
result of jealously on the part of Microsoft's competitors. I am in
support of the case being resolved as soon as possible.
As a result of this suit, Microsoft has agreed to a variety of
changes in its business practices. These changes will put to rest
any complaints by Microsoft's competitors that they are engaging in
anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft has agreed to share the fruits
of its labor with its competitors. They will disclose interfaces
that are internal to Windows' operating system products. They have
agreed to make it easier for computer companies to add non-Microsoft
software to their computers, too. These steps will give Microsoft's
competitors a giant boost in their ability to compete with
Microsoft. The settlement agreement provides more than adequate
protection against violation of the antitrust laws.
Nothing more should be required of Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Harold McClarnon
MTC-00011343
From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:22am
Subject: I am against litigatioin
In my state of N. C. we have approximately 1,000.00, motivated,
great citizens who work for Microsoft.. N. C. has been blessed with
a fine company , like Microsoft, locating in this state. I own
Microsoft software, as does my husband and my daughter and we are
very pleased with the quality and the price. We buy Microsoft, we
have a choice. and we would not change at present. In my husbands
profession he has used sun, oracle and many other software venders
and finds them all inferior to Microsoft. These companies should go
to work and developed wonderful software that would be competitive
and I would try their product again.. I am sure there will be
software beyond Microsoft and some young inventor is probably
working on it right now, not expecting to find it in a court of law.
I do not feel I have been overcharged for my soft ware, and I have
not been in anyway persuaded to buy Microsoft, it was my freedom of
choice.
Judy Sawyer
5913 Cedar Landing Rd.
Wilmington, N. C. 28409
[email protected]
MTC-00011344
From: Jim Rapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I applaud the DOJ for coming to settlement with The Microsoft
Corporation over antitrust concerns. Although the company has
perhaps been aggressive in certain business practices, it seems to
have curtailed these practices, and wants to move on in life, being
a good U.S. corporate citizen. Unfortunately, it appears a cottage
industry of media pundits, journalists, attorneys, special interest
groups, politicians, and competitors, who seem to have built careers
around keeping the company left dangling do not want resolution.
Microsoft has created many jobs, has helped the U.S. to become a
leader in information technology, and I use their products which
enable me to make a living.
I hope that the DOJ continues to work hard to get all parties to
settle the Microsoft antitrust case, and allows a great U.S. company
to operate without the shackles of all of the above named special
interests.
Thank you.
Jim R.
Northern Virginia
(Note, these thoughts also apply to my Austin, Texas based mom,
and Huntsville, Alabama based cousin)
MTC-00011345
From: Steven Rubenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:26am
Subject: Input for Tunney Act
I hereby do my ``civic'' (public interest) duty of putting on
record my opinion, for Tunney Act consideration, of the proposed
settlement in DOJ and ``some states'' vs. M$.
Fact: Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin was disconcerted with M$'s
business behavior as he understood it.
Fact: M$ and DOJ persuaded an Appellate panel, including Judge
Harry Edwards, to overrule Judge Sporkin.
Fact: Failure to resolve some of Judge Sporkin's concerns
eventually resulted in a full scale, costly lawsuit.
Fact: Federal Judge T.P. Jackson became so disconcerted with
M$'s business and courtroom behavior as to jeopardize his career.
Fact: Antitrust experts expected the DC Circuit, including Judge
Edwards, to overturn the bulk of Judge Jackson's rulings.
Fact: The DC Circuit UPHELD the bulk of Judge Jackson's rulings.
Fact: The Supreme Court would not grant certiorari to M$.
Fact: The DOJ, now headed by John Ashcroft, not Attorney General
when the case began, reached a proposed settlement with M$.
Fact: Before proposed settlement, DOJ publicly eliminated its
strongest weapon: possible breaking up M$.
Fact: News reports stated the ``states'' were surprised when the
DOJ settled and were told after the fact.
Fact: 9 of the states and DC would not accept the settlement,
contenting it would not remedy M$'s violations as upheld by the DC
Circuit.
Fact: News reports indicate antitrust experts largely feel the
proposed settlement is easy on M$ and has loopholes.
Fact: Throughout the trial and settlement talks, M$ did not
abate its campaign to make all things software its own--even
dictating hardware. At least 9 Federal judges--2 at the District
level, 7 at the Circuit level--and 9 Federal justices have expressed
agreement, overtly or implicitly, that M$ has repeatedly conducted
illegal business practices under, at least, the Sherman Act. I, as a
consumer, a scholar, a sometime software developer (without
affiliation with any software company), and a concerned citizen, do
not see how the proposed settlement remedies any of the findings
against M$. Further, at least from the time of the DC Circuit
panel's overruling of Judge Sporkin, M$'s subsequent actions have
shown it not to be trustworthy. Further, the fact that the DOJ,
under a new Attorney General, would, without notifying the states
accept such a settlement, under such conditions,
REEKS OF THE VERY KIND OF BACK ROOM DEALINGS THE TUNNEY ACT WAS
DESIGNED TO AVERT.
The only possible good in allowing a such a software monopolist
to exist, is that it is U.S. based, and, in the fashion of the
Federal government's facilitating the RCA-led oligopoly of World War
I, a U.S. based monopoly in theory can benefit national security,
including by facilitating standardization. Even this argument fails
with M$: its leviathan tactics have removed, in fact necessitated
against, any need for it to assure software quality. The FBI
recently got on M$'s case, for building software that is so easily
penetrated and subverted. The damage M$ has done in quashing
software innovation invites software developers worldwide to expose
and capitalize on the inferiorities of its products. M$ Internet
Information Server and M$ Outlook have become such wide standards as
to become two of the, if not THE two, major carriers of viruses and
worms in the world. Consequently, even the argument of allowing M$
to continue in its current fashion for national security falls
short.
We know that being a monopoly is not illegal, but violating the
Sherman, Clayton, or Robinson Act is. M$ continues to claim it has
the right to innovate, when in fact almost every one of its products
either has been bought--starting with DOS itself--or copied from a
less-monied innovator--Apple, Lotus, Netscape, RealMedia, Sun
Microsystems, to name a few--which M$ can do, because it has the
operating system running on 95% of the world's desktops. Lack of
innovation cannot be good for the consumer. Anyone who praises M$'s
products is doing so without knowledge of what might exist if
potential products weren't crushed before
[[Page 25446]]
inception or fruition,
because venture capitalists balk at investing in something they know
will be thwarted and because software developers have less chance
and possible reward from following through on ideas.
Neither can the consumer benefit monetarily by there being only
one major software company. The free market concept implies
competition determines price. M$, being a monopoly, can charge
almost as it pleases. Recently corporate customers have become
disturbed with M$'s coercive upgrade licensing policy. Though no
competition remains to which prices can be compared, it is known
that M$ has more surplus than any other corporation in the world--
even more than any pharmaceutical or energy company. M$ could lower
prices on its operating systems and productivity software
significantly and remain ``the world's richest company.'' It lowers
prices on products in markets it is trying to win -- browser and
media player are two examples--to the point of negative revenue on
those products, because its vast surplus enables it to cross-
subsidize.
Surely, inasmuch as the Tunney Act is constitutional, this is a
case to invoke it. The DC Circuit and the Supreme Courts await the
outcome.
Humbly submitted,
Steven Rubenstein
Murfreesboro, TN
615 896-7862
MTC-00011346
From: Matt Del Vecchio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am with the 9 states that have dissented from the others--I
beleive that while the proposed settlement is ``better than
nothing'', it is not Good Enough. without getting into it, it
appears the DOJ has backed down. that it was all roar and less bite.
this may have something to do w/ the new administration. a desire to
protect big business, perhaps.
Sincerely,
matt
Matt Del Vecchio
Web Architect
Microgistix
(612) 486-1125
http://www.chumbo.com http://www.chumbo.com/>
http://www.microgistix.com http://www.microgistix.com/>
MTC-00011347
From: Gwen and DeVerne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have chosen to use Apple MacIntosh computer and operating
system. I have freedom of choice. I chose to use Apple and I chose
to use Eudora e-mail software and I chose to use Office for the Mac.
If Microsoft was not supporting Apple by marketing Office for the
Mac software Apple would cease to exist.
Let the market place choose, not government.
DeVerne Jacobsen 01-15-2002 --
MTC-00011348
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
The proposed Microsoft settlement is unsatisfactory in many
ways. In a nutshell, the ``penalty does not fit the crime''. The
proposed settlement does not solve for the injury done to the Java
technology community or the Netscape browser market. It does not
solve for the monopolistic behavior by Microsoft. Please use your
power to stop the monopoly madness. Our consumer rights and security
is at risk.
Sincerely,
Susan Sanguinetti
(20 year employee--high tech)
MTC-00011349
From: Alfredo Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I write you to ask your continued support of the recent
Microsoft settlement. This settlement is the product of three years
of deliberation and compromise, and contains terms that are
beneficial to the entire IT sector. By supporting this agreement, we
help to get our technology industry back to business and our economy
flowing once again. By not supporting this agreement, we jeopardize
our position in this highly competitive worldwide IT market.
Not only has Microsoft agreed to make changes in licensing and
marketing terms, but has agreed to make changes in design and
development, such as changing XP and 2000 Professional to make it
more accommodating for software developers other than Microsoft.
This is a bold step, and we need to support this type of agreement
as it brings us together as an industry and as a nation.
Please help support this settlement by helping to stop any
further actions against this agreement. let us help get our industry
back to business.
Sincerely,
Alfredo Rodriguez
MTC-00011350
From: Jeffrey A. Mattero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please place me on the side of encouraging the parties to settle
this ridiculous lawsuit! It should never have been filed in the
first place, and I can't believe Microsoft is even willing to
settle! The company was enormously successful simply because they
had the best product on the market. Unfortunately, in this country,
success breeds contempt, especially from the government. It honestly
disgusts me. Anyway, if Microsoft is willing to settle, please quit
wasting taxpayer dollars, and end this once and for
all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you.
Jeffrey A. Mattero
[email protected]
MTC-00011351
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
Our government needs to protect our economy, and not to be
derailed by attempts to benefit certain companies' interest. It is
unfortunate that the remaining states that rejected the agreement
have strong support from Microsoft's competitors, in which they
reside. Those state representatives have no choice but to support
their prime resident companies, and their counter proposal is only
to benefit those resident companies. The focus of this case should
be based on whether Microsoft has indeed hurt the consumers and our
economy. If Microsoft has not taken a lead in consolidating computer
operating systems, and offer compatible/integrated software, we
would have induced significant inefficiencies throughout the
country, and the world. I highly encourage our government to move
forward and bring this case to a closure that would benefit the
crippled economy. There are other major elements that we all need to
focus on, instead of continuing to deplete our valuable resources on
this case. Microsoft is now fully aware of its boundaries, in terms
of ``anti-competitive behaviors,'' and shall continue to offer more
useful software tools that ultimately benefit us all.
Sincerely yours,
Takaaki Hayashi
839 Bramerton
Andover, KS 67002
MTC-00011352
From: David Baur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The District Court of the United States of America
Attn: Honorable Judge J. Fredrick Motz
Dear Judge Motz,
I disagree with you, as to YOUR rejection of the proposed
settlement that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson court had arrived at.
I do not believe that the Corporation known as Microsoft should have
been sued for anti-trust violations's in the very first place. I
know of not one single industry that has done as much as Microsoft,
to advance the education of millions of peoples within these United
States of America, and peoples throughout the entire world.
There are however many Corporations within these United States
that clearly demonstrate, and factually have, a monopolistic
position as to market share....Southwest Bell, Frito Lay division of
Pepsico Inc. just to mention a few. Perhaps if you truly want to
pursue anti-trust as a Judge, visit your local grocery store and
simply go to the chip section and see just how many competitors you
have. I think you will find Frito vs Frito vs Frito...
Also instead of pursuing a Corporation like Microsoft. which in
my opinion should not have been done in the first place; why not
[[Page 25447]]
pursue a better criminal justice system. Talk about a disgrace to
the American Citizenry.... our legal system is absolutely an
abortion of legal justice, and I am not speaking of anti-trust
suits, I am speaking of the common everyday criminal act...of the
murders, or the rape, of robbery,of the freedom that many criminals
receive in the courts within these United States of America!
Let your talents be used in solving the problem of the citizen.
Let's get back to basics Judge.
Someone in Gov't needs to provide a better way to communicate
with the Gov't., why not spend some time with Bill Gates and develop
a system in which the citizenry can vote, communicate, state their
opinions, make observations, suggest solutions to our ( suppose to
be ) government.
Let not one man have one voice, but rather have one man
supported by many voices.
Thank You,
David H. Baur Sr.
David H. Baur
11770 Ferguson
Dallas, Texas 75228
972 279 4927 front desk number
972 279 4939 back office number
MTC-00011353
From: A P Story
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Will probably end up a big mess like Bell/AT&T. What's happened
to the old spirit of building a business and not getting shot down?
I don't own much Microsoft but am greatly disappointed.
MTC-00011355
From: Joseph Rizzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is outrageous and very pro-microsoft.
Microsoft should be hit with huge fines and required to provide only
hardware to school systems. The schools should have the choice of
either an Apple system or an Intel system running Linux.
MTC-00011356
From: Mark Keckeis
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally;
I, like many people in the technology industry, am frustrated
and concerned by the DOJ's Proposed Final Judgment in it's anti-
trust case against Microsoft. Having found Microsoft to be a
monopoly and to have acted in a predatory manner, the DOJ looks like
it's about to let Microsoft off with little more than a slap on the
wrist. Why should Microsoft be above the law? The DOJ should do
three things in order to ensure that the law is administered fairly:
1. Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly,
2. Deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past violations, and
3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
I cant see that the PFJ does any of these things. Judge Kollar-
Kotally, I am not an attorney but I have been in the technology
industry since 1982 working for a number of vendors including Data
General (now a part of EMC), Apple Computer for 8 years, and four
start-up software companies since 1996 including four years at
Commerce One. I have personally observed Microsoft behavior both as
a competitor and as a partner. They are everything that the original
suit and verdict found them to be. It's a part of their culture.
It's the way their best and brightest get ahead. The PFJ will
exacerbate the behavior that made them a monopoly and created the
suit in the first place.
Microsoft is not an innovator. They play the late entry game
that their size affords them. By the way, they are not alone in this
practice. All of the largest companies, Oracle, SAP and others do
the same thing. It is possible for them because they have recognized
brand, distribution and money. Three things that very few small,
innovative companies have in quantities that allow them to compete
head to head with these giants. The difference is that Microsoft is
a MONOPOLY. By ``bolting'', It literally costs them nothing to take
the ideas and concepts of much smaller companies and leverage two of
these three powerful resources.
The innovation that has made the American economy the most
prosperous on the planet is a fragile thing. It starts in small ways
with concepts and ideas can become powerful when properly deployed
in the marketplace. The PFJ will throttle and undermine the risk-
takers who have been the source of so many of the ideas that will
drive our industry--and the American economy--forward.
Please, don't allow the PFJ to stand. Strike it down. The
American economy will survive and thrive through a settlement that
enforces the law.
Thanks for your consideration and best regards,
Mark Keckeis
Director of Sales
nthOrbit
3031 Tisch Way, Suite 12PW
San Jose, CA 95128
Cell: 925-963-0161
Office: 408-423-4690
MTC-00011357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
Microsoft is one of this countries leading growth companies.
They have contributed to our economy and citizens, and we personally
have benefited from their products at a fair price.
This action is about money. How to extract money from a
successful company by politicians, competitors, and the government.
You cannot fool the public. Perhaps 50% of all U.S. citizens have
some interest in Microsoft, either through stock or their products,
and this action effects them. We have more important problems to
expend our resources on, THE ECONOMY.
Rod Bunney
[email protected]
MTC-00011358
From: Bill Richart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:58am
Subject: microsoft settlement case
Please see the attached letter with respect to the Microsoft
settlement case. Sincerely,
William Richart
2445 Sheridan Street
Williamsport Penns Ivania 17701
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case has taken too
long to occur. Litigation should have never taken place from the
start and the nine states that have continued lawsuits need to be
suppressed.
Microsoft is an extremely important asset to the tech sector in
our economy. Our government should be praising the company for all
it has done instead of criticizing it. As a firm believer in free
enterprise, I think it is ridiculous that Microsoft must disclose
its technological secrets. Have we no more respect for intellectual
property? Now Microsoft must work with a handicap like no other in
the history of the IT sector.
This nation needs to get past this legal mess. The settlement
presents a viable solution, so I support it. It is time to get back
to the business of innovation, and leave litigation behind.
Sincerely,
William Richart
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00011359
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I agree with Microsoft. Get on with this settlement instead of
trying to get us stockholders to finance the several dissenting
state governments' budgets. The courts have accomplished everything
legal and allowable. Let the states balance their own budgets and
let Microsoft go back to doing what they do best--making the
software the public wants. Thanks. Sam Ostertag, Mesa, AZ.
MTC-00011360
From: David Zickefoose
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Zickefoose
10314 Washington Drive
Omaha, NE 68127
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the
[[Page 25448]]
courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David C. Zickefoose
MTC-00011361
From: Randy Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:03pm
Subject: RE MS Settlement
As a long time software developer (who has never worked for
Microsoft or owned their stock), I urge you to strike a blow for
consumers, and drop your suit. MS has served as a strong competitor
against potential monopolists such as Digital Research, IBM, Novell,
Sun, Oracle, & Netscape, which is why current and former executives
of those companies continue to lobby you against Microsoft. Instead
you should stand fast for Microsoft's right to compete and for
consumers rights to benefit from that competition.
Digital Research sold CP/M and derivatives for $200 and up to
consumers when IBM PC was released, it was MS's release of MS/DOS
that made the PC affordable and usable. Adjusted for inflation, the
price of Microsoft's operating system has barely increased (from
$40--$100 over 20 years), yet instead of a cryptic command line
interface with minimal utilities written by less than a dozen
engineers, consumers now get the fruits of thousands of engineers
efforts containing built in pc & printer networking, graphical user
interfaces, high speed file systems, word processor (wordpad),
internet browser, calculator, e-mail, paint program, terminal
program, games, etc. If you force Microsoft to unbundle any of these
products, you will cost consumers millions of dollars by forcing
them to pay separately for each of the products they need. No
software company has the right to compete by forcing consumers to
pay for what another company is willing to provide as part of a
bundle. As a software developer I know that ``middleware'' is a
dangerous place to compete since it's likely to be incorporated into
a future OS release, but I also know that I benefit when MS bundling
continously makes their OS more feature rich and accessible, as an
internet developer I know our market would have been retarded had
not Microsoft made internet access simple, easy and free by bundling
explorer.
I also know that Netscape had dozens of competitors, which they
brutally destroyed by giving away their browser (they of course say
they only gave away a ``beta'' but I was there, the beta was a very
solid application that made it unnecessary to buy a browser from
anyone else). Unlike Microsoft, they didn't plan to keep their
browser free, just until they made it the dominant middleware for
accessing the internet, then like a good monopolist they planned to
stick to the consumer. Now the DOJ wants to stick to us and force
everyone to pay $49 for a ``browser tax''?
Look through history. Lotus dominated the spreadsheet market,
forcing everyone to pay $500 for the ``standard'', a standard so
entrenched that no company could compete successfully against them.
Microsoft and others created better spreadsheets, but to no avail.
It wasn't until Microsoft was smart enough to create Office, giving
corporations much more value (word-processing and other products)
for the same $500, that the monopoly was broken. Consumers saved
hundreds of millions of dollars due to Microsoft's efforts.
It's the same in networking, where Novell built a standard
around their decreptit Netware Server operating systems. It wasn't
until Microsoft created Windows NT, and built a cheaper, better
network operating system that consumers and corporations had a
choice. It's the same in databases, where MS keeps Oracle honest,
and in workstations & serves, where MS keeps Sun honest. Please
strike a blow for competition and drop your suit, please don't force
me and other consumers to pay more for our software. thanks,
Clarke Hill
MTC-00011362
From: Patricia Book
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Book
6234 E. Presidio
Mesa, AZ 85215
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Patricia Book
MTC-00011363
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:19pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN I BELIEVE ALL OF THE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
AGAINST MICROSOFT SHOULD COME TO AN END AND ALLOW THE COMPANY TO
DEVOTE IT'S TIME AND MONEY AND ENERGIES TO THE CREATION OF BETTER
SOFTWARE AND PRODUCTS TO HELP CONSUMERS AS IT HAS SO SUPERBLY DONE
IN THE PAST. ONE CONCERNED CITIZEN
MTC-00011364
From: Kentyn Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Microsoft Settlement,
In my position as CTO of a large Internet based company I have
the opportunity to observe the long-term effects of Microsoft's
outrageous behavior. I have seen how Microsoft's undermining of JAVA
and other standards has pushed the industry backwards by at least 10
years, and cost every company that I know thousands of unnecessary
dollars in multiple development efforts and exception level
programming. With the latest US court ruling we now have given
Microsoft access to infiltrate our government with millions of
dollars of crippling technology. Microsoft should feel the maximum
punishment of the law for their monopolistic practices. Please
reexamine the recent rulings on this case and create justice for the
small technology companies that legally support our government.
Kentyn Reynolds
CTO
ClickAction
MTC-00011365
From: Steve Foerster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the whole matter was nothing more than the U.S.
government trying to strongarm the only major industry that didn't
kowtow to them, and thus the matter should be dropped immediately
with a full apology to Microsoft's employees and shareholders (I am
neither) and the American people.
Steve Foerster
MTC-00011366
From: Pete Holsberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:29pm
Subject: Revised Proposed Final Judgement
Dear Reader,
I have read the Revised Proposed Final Judgment against
Microsoft and completely
[[Page 25449]]
concur. I do have a question: why does this
judgment expire at all? Why is Microsoft not held to this forever
and ever? Should Microsoft return to its old ways after this
judgment expires, can further action be taken against them?
Thank you,
Pete Holsberg
Columbus, NJ 08022
MTC-00011367
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Folks,
How can you continue to punish our most successful American
companies that give the consumer products that are worth to me as a
user at least 50 times more than the small cost of their software ?
I'm a Microsoft WebTV user. For only $14.95 per month I get access
to cyberspace. I use my WebTV everyday and love it. I don't kow of
anybody, except Microsoft's failed competitors, that complains about
Microsoft's products being too expensive.
Why doesn't the Federal governernment do something about my
higher and higher electric bills at home instead of tryng to fix
Microsoft when it is not even broken. How about a U.S. energy policy
that brings down the cost of living everyday. Microsoft has not
changed my WebTV monthly cost of $14.95 for over 3 years but my
electric costs go up every year.
Thank you for listening.
Richard Stouts
MTC-00011368
From: Lee Behel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the Justice Department to accept the proposed settlement.
Microsoft has suffered unjustly long enough and the entire
technology sector needs this to end now.
Lee Behel
MTC-00011369
From: Randy Loflin
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/15/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
January 15, 2002
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I am writing to object to the settlement of the Microsoft case
which has been reached. Nothing in this settlement provides
punishment of Microsoft, or relief to the consumers of computer
products and programs in the United States. As a 30 + year computer
user, programmer and buyer, I find the settlement, which allows
Microsoft to continue its monopoly, to be of no help to me. In fact,
as witnessed by recent FBI comments regarding the Microsoft XP
operating system, maintaining the Microsoft monopoly can only be
hazardous to the people of the United States. Any decision in this,
the penalty, phase of the trial should include provisions to make
Microsoft operating systems compete equally with other operating
systems, ie., it should be an add on to any computer system, not
bundled with the system. Additionally, Microsoft program document
types must be available to the developers of other programs, so that
document interchange will be facilitated. And thirdly, Microsoft
internet schemata must interface without problems with all internet
users.
Finally, I would like to say that we must remember that this is
the penalty phase of the trial. Microsoft has already been found
guilty of antitrust violations. Now is the time to support the
citizens of the United States, the computer users, buyers, sellers
and programmers in this, the new millenium.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any
questions, feel free to contact me.
James R. Loflin
[email protected]
6020 Camino Alegre
El Paso, Tx 79912-2606
(915) 581-1476 (home)
(915) 771-6391 (work)
(915) 373-1476 (cell)
(915) 774-4905 (fax)
MTC-00011370
From: Bob Gregg
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want the DOJ to settle this case. The offer is fair and in the
public interest. DOJ resources should be applied to more critical
agenda items.
MTC-00011371
From: Jim McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Penalty Suggestion
Here's what I'd like:
1. Force Microsoft to adopt a file format for all Office
applications and PUBLISH their spec. Note that I am not asking for
the publication of the source code of Office, simply the description
of the file formats used. This way, people can use other Office
suites (PerfectOffice, SmartSuite, StarOffice) without wondering if
the files created will load properly in Word, Excel, Powerpoint,
etc... Just this would open up some competition in the Office Suite
market.
2. Force Microsoft to publish every single API in Windows.
Again, I am not asking for the publication of the windows source
code, but simply to the Application Programming Interface. This
would have two benefits: It would make sure that every service,
every facility is clearly exposed for use while at the same time,
removing the cloud of suspicion that Microsoft has some secret APIs
that make their applications work better than others.
3. Muzzle the Microsoft FUD division. This is by far the most
irritating aspect of Microsoft as a business entity. They generate
FUD and make belive that other competing products are not good while
it's far from the case. Feel free to select your example, there are
tons of them out there.
4. Forbid them to use the words ``innovate'' and ``innovation''
unless they can specifically show that they are the first-movers for
the particular product they are advertising. Again, there are tons
of examples out there where Microsoft has been only an ``adapter''
as opposed to an ``innovator''.
5. Offer a striped-down version of Windows. Just the bare bones
and a text-based browser (like Lynx) for initial download of the
browser of choice. Nothing else built-in, nothing else cobbled
together. A base install should not be more than 20 Megabytes and
should scream on Pentium-class machines.
6. Word the requirements that hefty fines will be leveraged for
non-compliance. Hopefully, this way, we'll have more competition and
a better computing environment. As well, if Microsoft is still
dominant after this, it'll be because they have earned it the good
old-fashioned way and we'll have little if anything to complain
about.
MTC-00011372
From: Samuel Sotillo-Hermoso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Since the beginning, the decision to prosecute MS was not a good
idea at all; however, the settlement is a worst one. In fact, it is
a populist approach to tell MS to give to ``disadvantaged public
schools more than $1 billion in funding, software, services and
training, and around 1 million Windows licenses for renovated PCs.''
This ``gift'' is the imposition of a de facto monopoly under
government sponsorship.
I hope you can settle this subject in a way that helps all
customers, not only a fraction of them, without damaging the whole
industry. Remember that the IT sector is not only MS.
Samuel Sotillo
Statesville, NC
MTC-00011373
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:51pm
Subject: Opinion regarding the microsoft settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm an American citizen overseas and I would like to express my
concern about the recent Microsoft decision. I was greatly disturbed
about the appearance of ``injustice'' that it embodies. I don't
think that a convicted monopolist with a long track record of the
destruction of highly innovative companies can be left virtually
untouched. In many ways, this company now exerts more influence than
the US government in economic terms both nationally and
internationally and, rulings that allow the continued misbehavior of
this confirmed monopolist, in my view, represent a real threat to
our national economic welfare and our democracy. In fact, I just
don't understand how this ruling has emerged from the most respected
justice body in the world-- although I didn't agree with the
previous manner of Judge Jackson's ruling (content aside), the
present situation appears
[[Page 25450]]
to be wholly unjust to an industry that is
the very essence of innovation in America and who's strength has
been built upon the emergence of thousands small innovative
companies over the last 20 to 30 years. I agree wholeheartedly with
the economist J Shumpeter who believed that the health of a nation's
economy and its economic future is based upon innovation and that
the purpose of profit is to pay for ``creative destruction''--the
cost of innovation. Take a look at the US computer industry--is this
not an example of Shumpeter's views in the purest sense? Is this not
the primary reason for the success of the US economy during the last
20-years?
Microsoft now totally dominates the desktop market in both
operating systems and applications software, it dominates the
hardware industry through this means, it holds a very strong
position in the server market. It has done this by the elimination
of competition at every possible opportunity--by leveraging
dominance of the operating system. This is a fact that can be
illustrated in repeated instances; IBM, Lotus, Netscape and Apple
being just four examples, shall I go on? The next step for them, and
the objective of their .net strategy, is to take over the internet,
and place gateways for every user of the internet. This can easily
be done by dominating the desktop market with Windows XP, with its
raw sockets, and introducing a new MS standard MS TCP/IP protocol
for the control of data transmission in the guise of greater
security. Who can fight this when Microsoft controls the software on
more than 90 percent of the desktop machines? And it can be done in
an invisible way, so that the average consumer and the US government
will not even notice--until it is too late, just like Lotus, Apple,
Netscape, and others. The additional strategy that they are seeking,
is to use the patent system and their legal muscle to control the
Open Source Software development movement, which now is the only
real threat (following the DOJ decision) that remains. If Microsoft
is successful in these two ways, then the US government will
definitely be relegated to a second class status and will become a
virtual, economic fiefdom of the Microsoft Corporation. Can you
imagine that the most important aspect of the information age in the
United States, the internet, it's software, hardware and income will
be totally dominated by one company? Incidentally, the internet,
don't forget, was created by the Department of Defense and the UNIX
world, federal government and University research agencies, not
commercial entities.
The American economic system has long been based upon the idea
of creating a level playing field for small businesses. This was a
major concern at the time of the American revolution; many experts
would say that the American revolution was a battle of the small
business economic model (America) against the control of a
government Mercantile system (giant global British trading
companies). The American economic system maintained a relatively
healthy balance until the emergence of the ``robber barons'' of the
late 1800's, which led to the current anti-trust laws that we have
today, implemented under Woodrow Wilson. I am not a socialist nor am
I a pure capitalist, but I do believe that one role of the
government and that of the Justice Department in economics is to
ensure a level playing field for all participants. Otherwise the
entire economic system becomes skewed, such that we create a few
extremely wealthy individuals and then everyone else. This is not a
healthy development for any democracy; especially the greatest and
most successful democracy in history.
How about some analogies to the original antitrust legislation
of the previous turn of the century (1900)--the ``robber barons''
were largely the rail tycoons. They controlled the railroad networks
and the machines that ran them, allowing them to control interstate
trade. In the present turn of the century, Microsoft represents the
same threat in the information age, where they control the machines
(read desktop computers) and now want to control the ``tracks''
(read internet). Is there any real difference? Not hardly. The
stakes are much greater--because it is then just one small step to
the control of information. And we all know how democracy is
undermined by placing the control of information in the hands of one
entity, be it a person, political party of company. Look at Hitler's
Germany, Stalin's Russia--in the future will we say Microsoft's
America? If there is to be control of information (and I'm not
arguing that there should), then it should at least be of the people
and for the people--in other words, a (frequently) elected body--not
a private individual, one person or one company. That's the way
democracies work.
As I said, I am not a socialist nor am I a laissez-faire
capitalist; this email is being written on Microsoft software on my
laptop; I use Linux software on my desktop at home, and we utilize a
mixture of Microsoft and Linux in our office network. I see
advantages and disadvantages in all systems. But the development of
competition has not come from other commercial entities to
Microsoft, because these would soon perish. The competition has come
from a grass-roots volunteer effort, of thousands of developers from
around the world, working through the internet on common problems
and common projects without financial compensation--rather, for the
pure purpose of making computer software that is based upon a common
and open standard, has freely available source code, is free to use
and is technically the best that it can be. I have no doubt that
Microsoft wishes to destroy this movement, as their recent public
statements about open source software licensing will testify.
What are other countries doing? The EU recognizes the danger
that Microsoft poses, and has their own ``anti-trust'' action
underway. In Asia, enormous support is being given to open source
software. China is basing their national software industry on
government-supported Linux systems. Japan is a significant supporter
and Korea has just announced the installation of Linux for some
120,000 government employees. India is supporting both commercial
and open source software. I have read that our own government is
moving to open source solutions in many areas - let's not let our
legal system destroy this valuable economic development.
I don't know what the correct solution is; I am not so naive as
to think that this is all a one-sided situation; and I personally
don't like to see any successful company penalized for that success.
Nor do I like to see private, open source development destroyed by a
financial power of a monopolist. The solution, perhaps, is not the
present one, nor is it the previous decision of Judge Jackson. It
lies elsewhere, and should be subjected to further study by
technical experts. It's worth taking more time in this one--this
threatens our democracy, our way of life and our economic welfare.
Just like railroads, telecommunications, power, etc, there comes
a time when the government must step in and protect the economic
welfare of its citizens and the economic future of the nation.
Allowing such a monopolist as Microsoft to continue to operate
virtually unfettered is the wrong thing to do for the computer
industry and for our democracy.
G Robin Summers
[email protected]
MTC-00011374
From: Jeff Holcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
I strongly oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The
``remedy'' has no teeth and will do nothing to stop Microsoft from
continuing to abuse its monopoly power. Only through strong
enforcement and a curb on their monopoly can other companies compete
with Microsoft. They have shown time and again that they will be
ruthless and will continue to abuse their monopoly.
Jeff Holcomb
[email protected]
Tucson, AZ
MTC-00011375
From: Michael Motyka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:25pm
Subject: One important facet of the settlement.
I am concerned with one aspect of Microsoft's behavior that has
a serious negative effect on competition and angers me when I go
computer shopping : MS using it's large market share to suppress
competition by pressuring computer vendors into restrictive license
agreements. Please look into MS licensing requirements that prevent
vendors from offering non-MSWIN machines or dual-boot machines (
machines that can boot either MSWIN or an alternative OS by a user's
choice at startup ). This problem is common for desktops but is even
more striking in the laptop market. I would like to purchase a
laptop computer but every laptop on the market contains MSWIN. It is
a fact that Linux can run on laptops. Why can't I buy a laptop w/o
Windows and skip the license fee for something I don't want? Laptop
vendors may say they don't want to sell a product w/o MSWIN but
there have been rumors of MS pressure on vendors to not sell a
competing OS.
[[Page 25451]]
Personally, I intend to cease purchasing MS products from this
time forward and move everyone in my family to an open source OS
like Linux. I want YOU to be sure that I can get hardware without
paying a Microsoft TAX!
Mike
MTC-00011376
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 7:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: (no subject)
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft
(PFJ).
First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards.
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to
overturn this settlement.
Sincerely,
Andrew Goldberg
Brighton, Massachusetts
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011377
From: Mid Continent Trucking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:00pm
Subject: U.S. v Microsoft
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
January 14, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530
Dear Judge Kollar-K0telly:
I am writing to you to express my support for Iowa Attorney
General Tom Miller and his efforts to obtain a fair settlement for
the citizens of Iowa with respect to the pending U.S. v. Microsoft
case. It is my belief that the proposed settlement is a means for
the U.S. Department of Justice to make a long-standing case go away.
If I were a stockholder of Microsoft, which I am not, I would
definitely be in favor of this settlement. However, as a consumer, I
am deeply disturbed by the failure to eliminate their monopoly, and
the eventual impact Microsoft will have on the availability of
competition technologies, due to their domination of the market.
As I sit here composing this letter, my thoughts run the gamete
of issues surrounding the Department of Justice proposed settlement,
but not being an attorney, I feel that any argument I may make would
be deficient in delivery and impact. It is for this reason that I
rely on the office of the Iowa Attorney General to protect my
interests. It is my hope that after reviewing all sides of this
issue, that you arrive at a settlement that adequately addresses the
liability of Microsoft with respect to their violation of antitrust
laws.
Sincerely
Dennis K. Henderson
40404 190th St.
Mapleton, IA 51034
MTC-00011378
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: Salim Furth [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
To be quite brief, I urge you to reject the U.S. Justice
Department's agreement with the Microsoft Corporation. As a
computer-dependent student and webmaster, I experience firsthand the
MS software and OS monopoly firsthand, and find it distinctly
unAmerican. The inability of other operating systems and software
providers to be competitive in the American market effectively
outsources innovation overseas, which will catch up with the U.S.
software industry in a few years if Microsoft is not stopped.
Thank you for entertaining input from citizens, as one such
citizen I greatly appreciate this service.
Sincerely,
Salim Furth
Milton, Massachusetts
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011379
From: WENDELL SPIRES
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WENDELL SPIRES
3601 N 300 E
KOKOMO, IN 46901
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
WENDELL SPIRES
MTC-00011380
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Judge; I would like to bring to your attention what I and
many other members of the technological community think is totally
unacceptable in the proposed deal between Microsoft and the justice
department.
1. The deal completely fails to terminate the Microsoft
monopoly, allowing it to expand into new markets. The fact that
Microsoft has abused its monopoly and is likely to do so again does
not seem to be important enough for the justice department to stop
Microsoft from monopolizing the market now, and preventing it from
doing so in the future.
2. According to the deal, Microsoft is allowed to decide which
product should be a ``part of the OS''. This gives a way for
Microsoft to bind any of its non-operating system related products
to Windows. It could be Internet Explorer as an example of the web
browser, or a stock trading software, or any other service or
software, preventing users from installing and using products other
than provided by Microsoft.
3. Although the deal requires Microsoft to allow the PC
manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs and allow them
to install icons or links to competing middleware programs, PC
manufacturers are not allowed to remove Microsoft's programs
completely. As a result, those Microsoft programs may prompt the
user to reconfigure the system and replace all the competitor's
middleware with Microsoft middleware, if they'd like. Many users
would say ``yes'', which will remove all the competing middleware.
4. Another important issue that is not addressed in the deal is
the way Microsoft deals with existing and potential competitors. For
example, the deal does not restrict retaliation against potential
competitors.
5. Microsoft refuses to support Java developers and alters
industry standards, like Java, to defeat competition. Still, the
deal does not require Microsoft to continue to distribute Java
technologies.
6. The deal requires Microsoft to share information on how its
middleware and
[[Page 25452]]
server software work together with Windows. However,
Microsoft does not have to disclose this information for middleware
it does not distribute separate from windows, or for middleware it
has not trademarked. It means, if the software is included into the
Windows package, they don't have to share any information about how
it works with Windows. This is an easy way to hide API's from
competitors and make sure the competitor does not have information
needed to make its software to work with Windows reliably. Also, if
Microsoft feels the information disclosure would harm the company's
security, they don't have to share the information.
7. There is no effective enforcement mechanism for restrictions
in the deal. The group of three men, half of which will be
controlled by Microsoft, will not be allowed to inform the public of
their work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work of the
committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement
proceeding.
8. The deal imposes only some fines on Microsoft, but allows it
to retain almost all of the profit gained from its unlawful
activities. This settlement gives a way to any monopolist to brake
the anti-trust law, just like Microsoft did, without any fear of
losing their profits.
Thank you for your attention,
Oleg Efimov
Saratoga, California
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011381
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: Jonathan Hill [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft
(PFJ).
First, the PFJ does not stop Microsoft from operating as a
monopoly. It does not force Microsoft to substansively alter its
structure and marketing plans. The inability of the settlement to
force Microsoft to change its business scructure makes the
settlement pointless. Second, the settlement does not punish
Microsoft for clearly violating anti-trust laws in the past. It
would set a terrible standard if Microsoft was allowed to get away
with its monopolistic and abusive tactics. Finally, the PFJ does not
provide an effective enforcement mechanism for the weak restrictions
it does implement.
All in all, the settlement between Microsoft and the Justice
Department is weak and does not fix the basic problems the suit was
brought to correct. I urge you to do everything in your power to
overturn the settlement.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Hill
Brighton, Massachusetts
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011382
From: venkatesalu rajagopal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:08pm
Subject: Dear Sir/Madam,
Dear Sir/Madam,
The success and flourishing of Microsoft is essential for the
economic wellbeing of the country and of individual
citizens.Damaging such national'treasure'is only to benefit some
companies that can not compete in the open market place and it will
do incalculable damage to ordinary citizens.Please do not do it.
Sincerely,
Rajagopal
MTC-00011383
From: McKim, Patrick
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would encourage the Department of Justice to settle the
Microsoft Case. Any further action will only be passed along to
consumers as additional cost, and that doesn't make sense.
Settle it!!
Patrick McKim
MTC-00011384
From: rbrhodes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:12pm
Subject: Letter
6420 SE Winged Foot Drive Stuart, Florida 34997
January 14,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to address the outcome of the Microsoft antitrust
suit. I am in agreement with the current settlement in so far as to
say that absolutely no further action should be taken against
Microsoft. I believe that this antitrust suit was unfounded from the
start. The issue at stake here as I see it is not whether or not
Microsoft is guilty of violating antitrust laws, but is whether or
not the state and federal governments are guilty of infringing on
free enterprise. I am in agreement with this settlement for one
reason only, and that is to see this suit come to an end
immediately. I do not believe that Microsoft should have had to make
the concessions that they have. Under the terms of the settlement
Microsoft is required to license its Windows products out to 20 of
the largest computer makers on identical terms, including cost.
Additionally, they will be required to document and divulge key
interfaces of the Windows operating system to their competitors for
the purposes of software development. Should any of these internal
interfaces fall under intellectual property rights, Microsoft will
be required to grant fair license for the use of said intellectual
properties. I believe that these restrictions are unfair to
Microsoft, but once again I must begrudgingly support the terms of
the settlement for the sake of further economic development and
bringing this suit to a final resolution. I have been a long time
user of Microsoft products, and have owned several computers over
the years. To have
come this far only to be struck down by the jealousy of other less
successful competitors is outrageous to me. To sum up my views on
this issue I ask you this, where would the IT industry be today
without the existence of Microsoft? Certainly not where it is now.
Sincerely,
Ronald Rhodes
MTC-00011385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January15,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my support for the settlement reached
between the Justice Department and Microsoft. It is my understanding
that you are currently entertaining public comment on the proposed
settlement.
I know that the Microsoft matter was very difficult to resolve
and I am sure that the proposed settlement will not make everyone
happy. For that matter, I don't think there is any possible
resolution to this matter that would make everyone happy, no matter
how hard you tried. This settlement allows additional competition,
which didn't exist before the suit, but allows Microsoft to remain a
viable entity. I think that is best for all involved and for our
country. The settlement is fair. Microsoft will share information
with its competitors regarding the internal working of Windows,
allowing them to more easily place their own programs on the
operating system. I support the settlement. Thank you for allowing
me to comment on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Norma Katt
911 Canterbury Drive
Columbia, MO 65203
MTC-00011386
From: Larry Lundquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft judgement
This settlement that the last few states are asking for, is not
right. The things they are asking for is not in line with what they
have accused Microsoft of. The first settlement that the Justice
Department has agreed to, is all the farther this case should go.
Larry Lundquist
1630 152nd SE
Bellevue, Washington
MTC-00011387
From: Miller, Dale (HOU)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
Regarding the following :
The Tunney Act review period, during which the Department of
Justice seeks public comment on its proposed antitrust settlement
with 9 states and Microsoft, closes Monday, January 28. The
settlement is not guaranteed until after the review ends and the
District Court determines whether the settlement is
[[Page 25453]]
indeed in the
public interest. I am in full support of the settlement terms, and
in complete agreement with the Microsoft stance/approach to the
settlement terms.
Regards,
Dale Miller
Compaq Computer Corporation
Platform Validation, ABG
Phone: 281-514-1695
Pager: 713-990-8265
Office: 7170
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00011388
From: Michael Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was completely aghast when I recently went to several major
retail stores (Office Depot, Best Buy, Staples among others) looking
to purchase a laptop computer. Every laptop came bundled with
Windows XP.
Having read about security issues in Windows XP, I asked each
store if I could get a laptop bundled with a different operating
system. In particular, I asked about Linux and even Windows 2000 as
alternate possibilities to Windows XP. In each case, I was told that
it was not possible.
I suspect that I could have simply purchased Linux separately in
the hope that there would be drivers available for the hardware in
the laptop, but this is often not the case and I likely would have
had to spend a great deal more money to replace existing hardware
which would be compatible to Linux.
The bottom line here is that I had no choice at all. On December
21, 2001, I purchased a laptop bundled with Windows XP and installed
Windows 2000 on it to have a dual boot system. Some of the hardware
is new enough that there are no Windows 2000 drivers for it. In
fact, there are several devices that Windows 2000 does not recognize
at all and I am unable to identify them.
This is a serious problem for consumers. Microsoft's monopoly
must be stopped. Not only do I have no choice regarding other
vendors' operating systems, I also have no choice regarding which
Microsoft operating system I want to use. I was forced to use
Windows XP.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michael Schwartz
MTC-00011389
From: Carmen A. Cancel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:14pm
Subject: case
I can't believe the justice department is still harassing
Microsoft. Where were you when Enron was steeling from it's stock
holders. I can't believe how selective you can be about your cases.
Does it have to do with the amount of money the company passes or
doesn't pass out to the officials? I don't get a penny for this
letter, but I say these things because I do admire a man that has
worked so hard to make his dream come true. Get OFF Microsoft's back
already!!!
Thank you, Carmen A. Cancel
MTC-00011390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's close this case against Microsoft and get on with
business. As for the fine being in the form computers with microsoft
o/s in them, make it cash so the schools can choose which computer
and systems they prefer and are most compatible within their
respective schools. Also, I think the states should drop their
suits. My concern is that the states have gotten a taste from the
tobacco settlements and are now looking for other ways to collect
money. The fact is the lawyer friends of the politicians are
probably the ones who are making out the most!!! Bob Hanson
MTC-00011391
From: Edwina Houlmiere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We think that it would be in the best interest of the American
economy to settle the Microsoft case and get on with life.
Edwina and Patrick Houlmiere
MTC-00011392
From: Robert Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
In my opinion, it is high time to settle this case and move on
together to help revive the economy and win the war against
terrorism. We don't need any more of this type of antagonism towards
business. We need to continue to move forward and concentrate on
things that really matter.
Robert
MTC-00011393
From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: Kentyn Reynolds [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:12 AM
To: `[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Microsoft Settlement,
In my position as CTO of a large Internet based company I have
the opportunity to observe the long-term effects of Microsoft's
outrageous behavior. I have seen how Microsoft's undermining of JAVA
and other standards has pushed the industry backwards by at least 10
years, and cost every company that I know thousands of unnecessary
dollars in multiple development efforts and exception level
programming. With the latest US court ruling we now have given
Microsoft access to infiltrate our government with millions of
dollars of crippling technology. Microsoft should feel the maximum
punishment of the law for their monopolistic practices. Please
reexamine the recent rulings on this case and create justice for the
small technology companies that legally support our government.
Kentyn Reynolds
CTO
ClickAction
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011394
From: Tom Rizzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:17pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
I would like to applaud the justice department for finally
settling with Microsoft. The allegations against the company, in my
opinion, were unfounded. Let's move on and get back to business in
the US.
Tom Rizzo
MTC-00011395
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough taxpayer money has been wasted on this unnecessary case.
Let Microsoft and this country s computer-users get back to the
business of participating in the good use of technology.
MTC-00011396
From: Berkland, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
hi
it is time to stop the endlewss lawsuits all levels of
government should cease trying to grab a tobacco type bonanza from
microsoft, in fact the y would be better srerved crafting some
legislation that would prevent these types of laywer employment
suits from being initiated in my opinion the various state DA's use
this case and others to further their on carears at the expense of
the public and the victim corporations the DA's should be jailed for
misuse of public funds
MTC-00011397
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is not the USA that is taking action against Microsoft. It Is
the idiot Liberals and Clinton Administration that initiated this
moronic action.
MTC-00011398
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:17pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
PLEASE ADD MY VOICE TO THE MAJORITY WHO FEEL THAT THE SETTLEMENT
IN THIS FOUR YEAR CASE WAS FAIRLY ADJUDICATED AND THE LAST THING OUR
ECONOMY NEEDS RIGHT NOW IS MORE LITIGATION. PLEASE LET THIS MATTER
END NOW.
SINCERELY
FERN LOWER
MTC-00011399
From: jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
microsoft should offer a version of windows that is JUST the
operating system with NOTHING bundled into it, such as internet
explorer. netmeeting, messenger, outlook express, etc.
[[Page 25454]]
thank you for taking the time to read my thought on the matter
MTC-00011400
From: Danuel Colter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
To say that over the last few years I could puke at the sheer
idiocy of the whole bit is putting it mildly. What Microsoft as a
Corporation that employs so very many people around the world, has
endured is truly mind boggling garbage. To say this was a trumped up
bunch of nonsense is putting it mildly, such money grubbing little
idiots I had never expected from my American neighbours, but as they
say, the lawyers are nothing short of charlatans.
Danuel Colter
Box 154
Emerson, Manitoba, Canada
R0A 0L0
[email protected]
MTC-00011401
From: Liz McCollum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In view of all the facts--leave Microsoft alone--why bring down
yet another company that's doing just fine without interference from
the U.S. Government.
Liz McCollum
S&S Services Group, Inc.
6222 Tower Lane Suite A-6
Sarasota FL 34240
941-377-4600 Phone 941-377-4610 Fax
[email protected]
www.snsservices.com
MTC-00011402
From: Connie Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I'm really getting tired of the courts dragging this settlement
issue out. Microsoft has made a fair and viable solution to the
courts. It is apparent that the only voices of protest come from
competitors. Consumers do not and have never had a voice in this
whole debate. Microsoft has always played fair, they have had the
brains and know how to market their product. If other companies had
half the smarts that Microsoft does then they wouldn't be yelling
foul. If competitors feel that this settlement will give even more
visiblity to the consumers then maybe they should step up to the
plate and donate an equal amount. Fair is fair, let's settle this
and let Microsoft get back to making the world a much easier place
to communicate!
Thank you!
MTC-00011403
From: Harry Hertless
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15128 W Amelia Drive
Goodyear, Arizona 85338
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Please finalize the antitrust case settlement as soon as
possible and quell opposition from the nine states still attempting
to continue litigation. This case has dragged on far to long. It has
been conceived from political interests instead of sound economic
ones and therefore has been flawed from the beginning. I am a
proponent of free enterprise and believe that government should stay
out of big business.
Especially in this case where a company has been pushing the
drive for innovation and growth in the technology sector. The last
thing our ailing economy needs is lengthy litigation that hinders
Microsoft's development. The terms of the settlement are more than
fair, as Microsoft has agreed to disclose internal interfaces and
protocols to competitors. They have also agreed to grant computer
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs. It is in the best interest of the
American Public for the settlement to occur. I urge your office to
help make this a reality. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Harry Hertless
MTC-00011404
From: Patel, Thakor G., MD
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:23pm
Subject: Opinion
It is important to settle and move on. This is dragging on for a
long time. In this time of national crisis and other priorities,
goernment should not spend too much time on this issue. None of the
complainers come close to what Microsoft has done for novice
computer users. The proof of this is in some nursing homes where
without the Microsoft Windows and packaging none of these folks will
be able to use computers.
T.G.Patel, MD
MTC-00011405
From: JKIRKPATRICK@PILLSBURY. COM@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This continuance of litigation is wasting my tax dollars. It is
time to settle this litigation and move on with boosting the
economy!
James Kirkpatrick
Box 1715
Denison, TX 75021
903-415-2576
MTC-00011406
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please just get this Microsoft case over with. I think the
settlement is fair and should resolve this whole controversy. Enough
tax dollars have been spent already. Leave Microsoft alone, go after
the cable companies or somebody else.
Thank you for your time.
Craig Avena
1235 Wood Ridge Dr
Atlanta GA 30339
MTC-00011408
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets get on with progress!!time and technology advances in the
competitive arena will solve any inequities in the market place!!!
MTC-00011409
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement as currently drafted. I think it
provides a fair and workable solution and I encourage you to use the
opportunity to bring this case to a close. Thank you.
MTC-00011410
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Its time to settle this case. I think the only winners in this
case are the lawyers. If Microsoft stops innovating the market will
run them over. Why dont you focus the DOJ efforts on find and
prosecuting more terrorist? instead of pounding away on Microsoft.
MTC-00011411
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this is a fair settlement. If AOL/Time warner is not a
monopoly I don t know what is. They are the ones pressing the
Microsoft case. The longer this case goes on the more it is hurting
the economy of the world. Yes world not just the U.S.
MTC-00011412
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough. Take the best offer MS puts on the table and run with
it.
MTC-00011413
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the arrangement proposed to satisfy the penalty on
Microsoft for monopoly practice is reasonable and fair. It should be
accepted.
MTC-00011414
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The prior e-mail may have had an incorrect State field. The
correct state is: New York.
MTC-00011415
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25454]]
Date: 1/15/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Day Your Honor: I don t believe that anymore prolong
litigaions should take place in fact POOR MICROSOFT has reached a
lengthy anti trust settlement and others have AGREED then so be it
DROP IT compititors should not prolong it any longer it has cost TAX
PAYERS and MICROSOFT a huge amount. I believe Microsoft took the hit
because they are good! It s time we start looking into the PUC.co.
CABLE co. LIGHT co. GAS co. that is where ANTI TRUST IS!!!! Thank
You for your time.
Peter J.Gay
MTC-00011416
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam: It is time to settle the Microsoft case now.
Further tax-payer money should not be wasted on an already immoral
and economically disatrous case. It is immoral because the
government again attempts to use its maximum power in the
application of force to prevent a company from operating in
VOLUNTARY trade with other companies and individuals. Even if a
company has market dominance consumers have free will and can choose
a competitor (in this case Linux or Apple). The market is open to
competing products. Open doesn't mean a free lunch as some
competitors would like it. As for the economic consequences less
efficient competitors hope to prosper from the downfall of Microsoft
and the consumer will have to foot the bill since the best company
providing sofware can no longer afford to provide the best service
at the lowest prices. Now Microsoft has offered a settlement and
still some are not satisfied. It seems that they would only be
satisfied if Microsoft would be put out of business or at least be
far less successful. In any case as a taxpayer I refuse to support
an immoral unjust and wasteful process. The time to settle is now so
that our economy can begin to prosper again.
Thank you.
Timur Rozenfeld
MTC-00011418
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a compeditor driven suit that should NEVER gone to trial
in the first place and has caused significant damage to the entire
Hi-Tech industry as witnessed by the free fall of stock prices since
the suit was first announced.
MTC-00011419
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned American citizen I am voicing my opinion. It s
high time to bring the lengthy anti-trust case against Microsoft to
an end. Microsoft's competitors are trying to undermine this
settlement by prolonging the process. I do not want this settlement
undermined. Thank You David Axel
MTC-00011420
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the government ought to SETTLE this case ! It is a waste
of the tax payers money to continue any longer. Money has been
allocated to schools for technical advancement among other things
and this is a good thing. Let technology continue to advance !
MTC-00011421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am satisfied with the Microsoft settlement. You should be
pusuing America OnLine instead. They are far worse a monopoly than
Microsoft ever was.
MTC-00011422
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle this now! justice delayed is justice denied! get on with
life and stop making lawyers rich!
MTC-00011423
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop the nonsense!! Leave businesses alone! You have no business
interfering into the free market system especially since you are
bringing supposed legal actions in fraudulent federal courts. Why
don't you take Microsoft into a district court of the United States
as it demanded by the U.S. Constitution instead of in a United
States District Court that is only authorized to function within DC
or in one of the U.S. territories! Look it up! But then again you
aren t honest enough to look up anything are you?
www.texasisaliar.com The Federal Anti-Trust Acts don t say what you
think they say so do the right thing and leave businesses alone!!
MTC-00011424
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Attorney General is abolutely correct about
this settlement satisfying the requirements of the courts it may not
be the result that MICROSOFT s competitors would have liked but it
is clearly a satisfactory resolution and will allow us all to move
forward with more important business.
MTC-00011425
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that Microsoft is guilty of nothing more than
providing extremely good products with very competetive pricing. I
do
not feel that the using public has been hurt in any way by anti-
competetive practices. I was a user of Netscape (a competetive
product) for several years and in fact I used it with the Windows
Operating System. I switched to Microsoft s Internet Explorer
because Explorer is a better product and for no other reason. It is
true that Microsoft married their Web browser and Windows Operating
system but that does not preclude the use of other browsers. It does
make an efficient and outstanding package which makes a lot of
business sense. I believe that the settlement proposed is already
more harsh than Microsoft deserves. And it is certainly in the
public interest to conclude this suit and move on. The Microsoft
competitors have already received more concessions than are
warranted.
MTC-00011426
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I approve of the negotiated settlement except that it doesn t do
enough to protect the victim (Microsoft) form the clutches of greedy
state's attorneys who after the tobacco settlement think they have a
license to steal.
MTC-00011427
From: Joey Lesh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not find the settlement with Microsoft to be satisfying to
me as a consumer. In fact, some parts of it are akin to throwing the
rabbit into briar patch. Furthermore, the settlement does little to
prevent further illegal and anti-competitive actions by Microsoft. I
urge you to continue the litigation with Microsoft.
Joseph C. Lesh
Software Engineer
MTC-00011428
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The so-called settlement is just Microsoft s way of foisting
overvalued obsolete and sub-par hardware & software off on a public
that would not normally buy such material it lets them increase
their market share dump unsellable product at minimal cost and get a
massive tax write-off for the overvalued garbage without ever
admitting to or abstaining from their usual anti-competitive
monopolistic practices. It does not matter to me if they are broken
up or remain whole--they need to be brought to heel made to behave
and financially punished for their unethical practices!
MTC-00011429
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned American I am troubled by the actions taken over
the past several years by the Justice Dept of the U.S. The time has
come to end the expensive and time consuming case against MicroSoft.
Please
[[Page 25456]]
bring this case to a quick resolution. The American public
has paid enough for what little has been and will be gained by this
on-going case. It is clearly time to quickly and quietly let this
case slip into history as another mistake made by the Clinton White
House. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.
Charles B. Todd
MTC-00011430
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You must end this discussion and enslavement of Microsoft now
before YOU kill the whole technical industry. Microsoft has been
punished enough. It is only those who want to punish a great company
is what is holding this up. Let Microsoft contribute as they have
said and tell those other states to forget it and stop now. We the
public will only suffer further punishment if You the goverment
persist in punishing Microsoft further.
MTC-00011431
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a follower and stockholder of Microsoft for no less
than 12 years. I beginning to lose faith in the American Enterprise
System and feel that our basic American lifestyle is being
undermined by greedy lawyers and politicians who really no nothing
about the struggles of technology enterprise and who want to turn
everything good into a legal battle for money and power. How did
lawyers suddenly become the directors of our lives. What s happening
in this arena is destroying the financial resources I use to support
my family. We are in dire financial trouble because of this terrible
fiasco. There is something terribly wrong in America today.--USAF
Viet Nam Era Veteran Veteran
MTC-00011432
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Hesse With regard to the Microsoft case--enough is enough.
It s time to drop any further litigation. Microsoft has been
penalized more that it should have. I have wondered if this case was
a witch hunt. Just to show who was in charge. Thank you for
considering my request.
Albert R. McKenzie
MTC-00011433
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is another instance of dragging feet. I think enough is
enough and we need to move on. Let s get this matter of with. LEAVE
MICROSOFT ALONE and move onto issues --real issues. I believe that
if it weren t for Microsoft we wouldn t be where we are at today
with our technology. I m glad that MS is not going to be split up
but we need to get on with things. You know before all this we ran
Netscapes browser at home --but we have since than switched to only
running IE as we feel it s a better browser. I don t see a monopoly
here I see competitors that might have an inferior product and want
the help of the Government to boost their product. Let s drop this
shanigans and get on with the business.
MTC-00011434
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: I think US Government VS Micro Soft is a travesty of
justice and a crime against the American public. Micro Soft is being
punished for selling an ever better product for less and less.
[Nobody points a gun at anyone for buying Windows the reason being
they buy Windows because it works.] Remember our American motto ....
with Liberty and Justice for all. .... A trust to work has to keep
out competition from it s point in the market by force or the threat
of force. i.e. the only way that this would be possible. i.e.to make
it illegal by government fiat for anyone to compete against this
business. Our US Mail service is a monopoly. No one but the
incompetent US Post Office can deliver mail at ever worsening
service and ever rising prices. And look at the result. It is not
Micro Soft which gets better and better for less and less. We should
be ever so grateful to Micro Soft instead of punishing them for
being good at what they do. And to make what Micro Soft does so well
a crime is first....UN-JUST....and second it deprives we citizens of
our...FREEDOM... to choose the product we want at the price we want
to pay. To continue to harass this manificent company is a crime
beyond reason. Stop it if you have any decency left. Sincerely and
with great contempt to the miserable scum who brought this crime of
anti-trust against this manificent company Micro Soft. I remain
Sincerely J.
Billy VerPlanck
MTC-00011435
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly wish government was less involved in many aspects of
business. I believe the consumer will decide what products do well
by their desire to purchase or not. Where would we be without
microsofts inventions? America was founded on the idea of free
enterprise. Let it be. The tax payer should not have to continue to
support these government actions. If competitors come up with a
better product it will sell.
Lets let the public consumer decide which products it uses and
how. L.H.
MTC-00011436
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Some Microsoft publicity outfit gave me a call (along with
hundreds of thousands of calls to other people?) and wanted me to go
to this web site (www.techleaders.org) and fill out this form in
support of Microsoft. There is no doubt that Microsoft is a very
powerful corporation that makes quite a bit of money. The problem is
that Microsoft plays hardball by punishing its partners in business
if they don t toe the mark. They also seem to have an amazing
control of judges --- imagine a settlement that causes schools to
give up competing products in favor of Microsoft products! This must
REALLY hurt Microsoft to see the anemic competitor (Apple) kicked
out of one of its few remaining markets. I view the games between
judges and Microsoft as more of a test of the corruption of U.S.
judges than as a case about Microsoft. Microsoft is only one of a
long string of well-heeled outfits that can purchase the kind of
justice they feel they want from our crooked judges.--If only we had
an interest in following the money trail to our federal judges...
MTC-00011437
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the gov.should settle the case against microsoft. the gov.&the
states seems to want to run microsoft that will cost the comsumers
lots of money.microsoft has a lot of great products.I buy them
because I like them not because their is no other choise
MTC-00011438
From: Jeanine Leone
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case should be settled with no further litigation.
Jeanine Leone
MTC-00011439
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get off Microsoft s back! A strong Microsft is good for America.
MTC-00011440
From: J.REID
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The comprehensive agreement should be implemented as soon as
possible to free up the courts and lawyers for other matters.
Yours truly,
Jeanette Miles Reid
MTC-00011441
From: Brett Glass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 15, 2002
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To whom it may concern:
[[Page 25457]]
The proposed settlement in US v. Microsoft/State of New York et
al v. Microsoft has shaken my personal faith in the integrity and
competence of the US Department of Justice. It is not at all in the
public interest and hence should be roundly rejected by the Court.
The proposed settlement is riddled with loopholes which would
allow Microsoft to continue many of its existing anticompetitive
practices and to begin engaging in new ones. For example, Section
IV, Paragraph U of the proposed settlement states, The software code
that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.
This clause allows Microsoft the ability to engage in the anti-
competitive practice of ``bundling'' merely by claiming that a
product distributed for the sole purpose of destroying markets or
businesses is part of Windows.
Likewise, Section III, Paragraph J of the proposed settlement
states: J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers
of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise
the security of a particular installation or group of installations
of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or
(b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft
product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency
of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API,
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms,
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no
history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of
intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for
the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or
shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and
viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense,
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to
test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft
specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications
shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems
and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
This paragraph would allow Microsoft to make any number of
excuses for failure to disclose its APIs and communications
protocols to any competitor. For example, clause 1(a) would permit
Microsoft to claim that its protocols had to remain secret for
security reasons, even if the alleged security problems were due to
bugs in Microsoft's own software. Clause 2(a) could allow Microsoft
to condition the release of information on an intrusive and
disruptive license audit of the recipient's premises. Clause 2(c)
would prevent acccess by groups which developed software
collaboratively rather than as part of a formal business. Clause
2(d) could allow Microsoft to delay the release of competitive
products, obtain advance information regarding competitors' product
plans, and/or create barriers to market entry by imposing
prohibitively expensive testing requirements.
These are only some of the immense and egregious defects in the
proposed settlement which would allow the company to continue to
engage in the anti-competitive practices which motivated the filing
of this case. The fact that there are so many defects in the
proposed settlement has raised suspicion among members of the
general public that it was politically motivated; that it was
authored by, and/or for the benefit of, Microsoft; and that it
represents the fruits of Microsoft's infinitelyt deep legal war
chest and lobbying power rather than anything remotely resembling a
remedy.
The Court would be remiss in its responsibility to protect the
public interest, and would permanently impact Americans' faith in
government and in our free enterprise system, if it accepted this
settlement rather than directly and quickly addressing the ongoing
anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices described so eloquently
by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. The Court should roundly and
firmly reject the proposed settlement and instead impose conduct
and/or structural remedies that have at least a reasonable chance of
success.
Sincerely,
Brett Glass
P.O. Box 1693
Laramie, WY 82073-1693
MTC-00011442
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough already. Microsoft has helped put a computer in 70% of
the homes in the US and now it s getting punished for it. The
government has spent millions of taxpayers money because some
companies like AOL are whining. Please end this waste of taxpayers
money and accept the settlement deal
MTC-00011443
From: Thatcher, Conley S
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a private citizen, who owns Microsoft stock, and who uses
their products daily, I have a strong interest in seeing this
antitrust case finished. I think the settlement worked out with the
U.S. DOJ is fair and should end the issue. I sincerely hope that
this issue isn't dragged out interminably in the courts of the nine
holdout states. It would not be good for the consumers or the
country.
Conley Thatcher
120 Laurelwood Ave
Placentia, CA 92870
[email protected]
MTC-00011444
From: Dan Damon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please get this case settled. Microsoft's latest settlement
offer should be ample punishment considering the hugh expense they
have already incurred in defending themselves from over aggressive
government intervention. Wedbush Morgan Securities employees may not
accept any orders or instructions to buy or sell securities of any
kind by e-mail. All such instructions and orders must be placed by
telephone or in person with your Investment Executive. The
information contained within this e-mail is based on information
available and believed to be accurate at the time it was prepared.
It reflects the opinions and beliefs of the individual sender and
not necessarily those of Wedbush Morgan Securities.
MTC-00011445
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let s put an end to this issue with the Department of Justice
and Microsoft. The technology industry needs a resolution the
economy needs a resolution and most of all the taxpaying citizens
need a resolution. Microsoft has made an offer for settlement that
is more than fair. Let s be realistic the issue is being perpetuated
by competitors of Microsoft. If there is any doubt of that just
refer to the January 15 2002 comments in USA Today by the CEO s of
both Sun Microsystems and Oracle.
MTC-00011446
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please setle the Microsoft Issue immediately.
MTC-00011447
From: Jay Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department Officials,
I am writing this letter to express my support for the proposed
settlement. The ongoing legal action has severely depressed the
technology industry as a whole, and notably hindered Microsoft in
particular. The settlement proposed takes appropriate action, but
leaves the freedom to innovate in the hands of Microsoft, and does
not set any untoward precedents for the industry as a whole.
So far, I have been extremely impressed with the DoJ's handling
of the case over the last few months. I look forward to a speedy
resolution.
Sincerely,
Jay Tucker
Technology Coordinator
St. Luke's School
MTC-00011448
From: Raypholtz, Jeannette
[[Page 25457]]
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
I am told that our voice counts in determining whether
settlement will be reached during the review period of the Tunny
Act, ending January 28, 2002. I think it is now in the best interest
of the company (Microsoft), their shareholders, and the tax payers
money to settle this antitrust suit once and for all. After all this
time, why can (9) states not accept the terms of the settlement, and
continue to squeeze Microsoft for more retribution for something
they have already paid dearly for. Please consider my opinion, and
please, let this long drawn out case be settled.
Jeannette Raypholtz
Raypholtz, Jeannette.vcf>>
MTC-00011449
From: vera reitmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please settle this as soon as possible and lets get on with our
lives. Don't let this drag on and on!!
MTC-00011450
From: Clete Bayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough!
Microsoft and the American economy have been punished more than
enough. Let? s get this settled and be glad it's over.
Clete Bayer
MTC-00011451
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The time has come to put an end to this endless badgering of a
great company. Time will show that this ``monopoly'' is temporary
and the settlement that has been arrived at is reasonable. Any
company that sits on it's laurels and tries to throw its weight
around will soon fall by the ways side in the fast changing would of
computer software. Microsoft has a competitive advantage for now. So
be it.
Tom Barnard
MTC-00011452
From: Hawkins Duane S TSgt SMC DET 11 /CITS
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:21pm
Subject: RE: Action Against Microsoft
I have a suggestion which I believe will benefit consumers and
which seems to have been overlooked, up to this point.
1. Forbid Microsoft from issuing software under an ``OEM''
license. Current Microsoft OEM licenses forbid users (and, now that
product activation is here, prevent users) from ever installing the
software on any machine other than the one with which the software
was purchased, EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL MACHINE HAS BEEN DESTROYED OR
THE SOFTWARE REMOVED FROM THE MACHINE. In effect, if a user buys a
computer from an OEM with a Microsoft product installed, then
chooses at a later date to perform a major hardware upgrade or
replace the hardware, in order to use the SAME software, that
individual must purchase a new license, in addition to the one he
has already paid for, even though the original license goes unused.
2. Order Microsoft to make reparations to consumers forced to
repeat purchases of Microsoft software due to hardware upgrade /
obsolescense by issuing retail license keys to holders of OEM
software. In the case of software which is included on a ``System
Restoration Disk'' which cannot be used on machines other than the
one with which it was purchased, order Microsoft to provide full
retail copies of the Microsoft media included with the system, in
exchange for the original system restoration CD. This exchange could
be implemented through the hardware OEMs' support divisions, but
should be paid for by Microsoft.
I believe that Microsoft has profited unfairly by coercing
hardware vendors into bundling Microsoft software with their
products in such a way as to force users to purchase new copies of
the software every time they upgrade their hardware.
Purchasers of new systems are ordinarily unaware that such
restrictions have been placed on their use of the software, unless
they are accustomed reading the fine print of a license agreement
which may span several pages, and which may still leave users with
the question of software transferability unanswered.
Note that this measure would not prevent Microsoft from
enforcing its ``One user one license'' software licensing policy. It
would merely protect users from having to purchase new software each
time they upgrade their hardware.
Sincerely,
Duane S. Hawkins
[email protected] Software Developer
MTC-00011453
From: Bill Christy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear DOJ:
In my opinion, the original agreement is enough. If it had not
been for Microsoft, our computer technology would not be in the
advanced condition that it is . We would still be seeing
corporations fighting over what standards that the industry should
use. Each had their own adjenda. Microsoft took all the ends and put
them together and made it work. Now it is being condemned for doing
what needed to be done.
The States that are not settling for two reasons. First is
trying to get preferred treatment for Companies in their states.
Second is just greed.
Lets get this settlement over and get back to business.
Best regards,
William B. Christy
MTC-00011454
From: Mutasem Abu Remaileh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft
The software industry would not be where it is today without
Microsoft. What the government calls illegal bundling of products is
really a good step forward that makes using a computer easier for
the consumers. As any other company Microsoft is trying to ensure
its competitiveness in a very competitive market. Lets stop this and
move our economy and technology forward.
Mutasem
MTC-00011455
From: Chris Brand
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:23pm
Subject: The tabled agreement is NOT fair on consumers
I'm writing to express my opinions on the proposed settlement,
as permitted by the Tunney Act.
Open Source / Free Software Section III.D and III.E, which
require Microsoft to divulge details of interfaces (APIs and
Protocols), in order to allow competing products to be developed,
does not appear to recognize Open Source Software (which is often
available free of charge and often has no recognisable company or
other organisation in control of its development) as an ``entity''
to which these interface details should be available. This despite
the fact that Microsoft has been documented as recognising that Open
Source Software presents a significant threat (see for example, the
``Halloween Memo'' by Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil).
For example, the SAMBA project (www.samba.org) is designed to
allow other Operating Systems to interoperate with Microsoft-
dominated networks. Currently, they have to reverse-engineer all
Microsoft protocols in order to create their software, which
necessarily limits and delays its functionality, making the use of
non-Microsoft Operating Systems in a Microsoft-dominated network
less attractive. If Microsoft were required to divulge interface
details to developers of Open Source software, projects like SAMBA
would make the interoperation of Microsoft and non-Microsoft
machines much more achievable, and hence encourage competition.
Because most of these Open Source projects do not have a corporate
sponsor, there is no entity available to pay a ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory license fee''. Note also that ``reasonable'' to a
multi-billion dollar corporation has a completely different meaning
than ``reasonable'' to an unemployed software developer who creates
an Open Source project in order to enhance his coding skills.
The ideal solution to this problem is to change the mechanism by
which these APIs and protocols are made available--rather than
requiring Microsoft to license them, instead require them to
*publish* them, such that they are available to all, in a similar
manner to the publication of the standards for the Internet, which
facilitates the communication of a wide range of different computers
from different manufacturers, running different Operating Systems.
A similar problem exists where the API or protocol in question
relates to Intellectual
[[Page 25459]]
Property rights of Microsoft. Again,
providing ``reasonable'' licenses is not sufficient to allow Open
Source projects to use the interfaces. I suggest that in these
cases, Microsoft be required to license the related Intellectual
Property free of charge to any implementation where the source code
is made available to the public (i.e. available for download free of
charge on the internet).
Education Market
Although I didn't find anything in the documents online, I have
read that Microsoft may provide hardware and software to schools for
free as part of the settlement. This is patently ridiculous, if
true. The Education market is one of the few where Microsoft has had
difficulty due to Apple's dominance. This would not be a punishment,
but an opportunity for them to break into a new market.
Thank you for taking the time to read these comments.
Chris Brand [Software Technical Lead--Wireless Systems]
Spectrum Signal Processing Inc.
t 604.421.5422 // f 604.421-1764
mailto:[email protected]
www.spectrumsignal.com
Confidential information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message please destroy
this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
MTC-00011456
From: Grehan, Yvonne
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:23pm
Subject: LAW SUIT
It is TIME to settle this case and get on with the business of
BUSINESS. It is in the best interest of the American economy to get
beyond this stumbling block and focus attention on REPAIR,
OPPORTUNITY and SUCCESS. The damage done by this law suit has gone
far beyond Microsoft and has impacted negatively numerous areas of
our domestic and global business sectors for too long. LET'S MOVE
ON.
Please SETTLE.
Thank you.
Yvonne Grehan
MTC-00011457
From: Joyce Cuyar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets settle this afair and move on with our lives. This
settlement is fair to the consumer and good for the economy. Too
much time, money and effort has already been expended.
Joyce Cuyar . Owner
Pro-Search Prof. Recruiting
PO Box 372 . Jackson Center . PA . 16133
Phone: (724) 475-4420 . Fax: (724) 475-3519 . Email:
[email protected] .
http://www.pro-search.net
Charter Member of TOP ECHELON NETWORK OF RECRUITERS Charter
Member of US RECRUITERS (membership by invitation only).
MTC-00011458
From: Larry Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the terms of the review agreement: I am unequivocally opposed
to further legislation. The so-called ``monopoly'' did not come
about by covert means but by the public, the users selecting in the
market place the software that best suited them. In the beginning
there where a myriad of competitors, what did Microsoft do that was
illegal except provide software at a price most of us could afford
that did 90% of the things we wanted 90% of the time for 90% of what
we wanted to pay. The competitors, whose products could not then and
certainly can't now, have resorted to litigation to overturn a free
market decision.
No more litigation, settle now.
Larry Thompson 1
1801 China Spring Rd Waco, Texas 76708
(254) 867 2615 [email protected]
MTC-00011459
From: Kelley Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not a lawyer, an activist, nor am I exceptionally well
informed as to the specifics of the proposed settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft. However I would urge those
involved on the government side of this case to settle quickly and
with as little punitive action towards Microsoft as possible. My
feelings are that Microsoft is very successful because they sell
something that may consumers and businesses want, not because they
are evil or unlawful. In nature diversity is good and in our
capitalistic system, competition is good. When one entity is
successful they should not be punished to protect those that were
not as successful. I believe that this case is more about protecting
the competitors of Microsoft rather than the consumers.
It is good to have many companies supplying cars, appliances and
even computers. It is not necessarily good to have many sources of
the standards that allows them to operate. Imagine if each washing
machine had different power requirements, different plumbing
attachments etc. The cost to install and operate any one would be
higher. Microsoft is supplying a base standard that is allowing
people and companies to communicate in ways that would be simply
impossible if it were not for the consistency in operating systems
and office utilities that microsoft provides.
Our economy is struggling to overcome a number of negative
factors. Please do not add another by drawing out this senseless
process.
Thank you for considering my opinion,
Kelley Jones
Austin, Texas
MTC-00011460
From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do whatever is necessary to approve the proposed
settlement as proposed. It's time to move on.
MTC-00011461
From: Mark Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Justice Department,
Get off Microsoft's back. Spend your time and our money bringing
to justice true and real violators of the Constitution and anti-
trust laws. Microsoft should be admired for their success not
attacked for it. This pettiness of the Federal Government and
Justice Department is not only unbecoming but borders on un-
American.
Respectfully,
Mark Price
MTC-00011462
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I favor acceptance of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
Antitrust Litigation.
Marco Spani
Commercial Properties Northwest, Inc.
500 Union Street, Suite 530
Seattle, WA 98101
206-650-0852 phone
206-624-8584 fax
MTC-00011463
From: Jennifer Holms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached is my letter on behalf of the Microsoft settlement.
Please include it as part of the official record.
Thanks.
Jennifer Holms
11246 NE 145th St.
Kirkland, WA 98034
425-488-9038
11246 NE 145th Street Kirkland, WA 98034-1015
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 12, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Microsoft and the Justice Department have spent three years in
court and a tremendous amount of resources on the antitrust case. I
was pleased to learn that a settlement was reached and that this
case may soon come to a conclusion. If this case is ended both sides
will be able to return to more important priorities. Microsoft has
agreed under this settlement to major concessions and changes. Under
this agreement Microsoft will share their internal interfaces with
competitors, which is an unprecedented release of information by a
software firm to competitors. Microsoft also has agreed to end any
contractual restrictions that would possibly harm competitors. With
these provisions in the settlement there is no reason to continue
this case, as some special interests would like. Please end this
case and the wasteful flow of resources to fight it by the Justice
Department and Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Holms
[[Page 25460]]
MTC-00011464
From: John E. Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In accordance with the Tunney Act review period, I wish to
register the following opinion:
I feel strongly that the proposed settlement is not adequate. As
a forced consumer of Microsoft products, which are overpriced and
inherently defective, a breakup of the Microsoft corporation would
permit free market competition and price competitive, interactive
operative units to fit my needs.
Thank you,
John Burns
MTC-00011465
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:25pm
Subject: Settlement--Microsoft
I've read the terms, think they are reasonable. People I've
talked to, stockholders or not, want this to be settled. Enough
time--enough money !
Lorette Schneider
17914 23rd Lane NE
Shoreline WA 98155
MTC-00011466
From: Richard Wessels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although, I find the actions being proposed in this settlement
harsh and far reaching as well as possibly damaging to the company
they are targeted at. I find the alternatives far worse. I find it
reprehensible that the nine dessenting states that agreeded to
combind their case with that of the DoJ now want to impose even
harsher restrictions on Microsoft. These ``honerable'' people are
acting only in the interest of the companies in their states. Utah =
Novell, California = Netscape, Apple, and a host of others, and Mass
= AOL Time Warner (possibly the largest single threat to competition
that exists today). Something must be done to stop this madness. And
although I did not agree with the settlement as it put way to much
power in the hands of government officials who know nothing of the
computer industry. I would rather have the lesser of the two evils
then to have one of the largest employers in the country ruined by
over zealous lawyers getting paid off by other companies.
Richard Wessels
Durham, NC
MTC-00011467
From: Jeff Pearce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to take an opportunity to voice my support for the
proposed Microsoft Settlement. I think that the settlement is more
than fair, and I also believe that settling this case now rather
than later is in the best interests of consumers.
It is my belief that this case hanging over one of America's
greatest success stories is part of the reason our economy has been
suffering for over a year. In that light, I believe that delaying
this case any further only benefits Microsoft's competitors at the
expense of everyone else. It's no coincidence that most of the
states who are pushing for a stronger settlement are also home to
Microsoft's biggest competitors.
It is my desire as a citizen and taxpayer that my government
does what is right for the majority of Americans and approves the
current settlement.
Sincerely
Jeff Pearce
Sammamish, WA
MTC-00011468
From: Charlotte Lesan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Settle the dispute with Microsoft! The nine states involved no
doubt have companies intent on further damage to Microsoft or even
have the intention of driving Microsoft to Canada. Originally states
with jealous competitors of Bill Gates and Microsoft instituted the
suit and our stock market has been spiraling downward ever since.
Put and end to this foolishness and allow the country to recover.
Yours truly,
Charlotte H. Lesan (Mrs. James E.)
MTC-00011469
From: Robert Lantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the settlement.
Robert J. Lantz 5249 S. Joplin Pl, Tulsa, OK 74135
MTC-00011470
From: Joseph Maccaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is time to settle with Microsoft.
Get on with national crisis business.
Joseph Maccaro
MTC-00011471
From: Andrew Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi please break Microsoft into at least two parts. Their
monopolistic practices are spiraling out of control and the proposed
``settlement'' actually does more harm than good. Have you looked at
Windows XP yet?
The answer is right there in plain view in XP. Thank you for
your time.
Andrew J Fox
MTC-00011472
From: Behtash, Behzad
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I would like to add my voice to support the proposed settlement
terms between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I truly
believe that these terms are in the best interest of consumers and
our country. I believe that
DoJ's limited resources are best utilized in dealing with more
pressing issues at this point and the current terms of the
settlement will insure fair and open competition in the marketplace.
In my view, most of those opposed to this settlement are direct
competitors to Microsoft who would rather gain a competitive
advantage in the courts and at the expense of taxpayers instead of
doing so in the marketplace. That should never be the objective of
an antitrust case.
Behzad Behtash
Oakland, CA
MTC-00011473
From: Ralph Hudson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get this Microsoft litigation settled. America needs to move on
from attacking legitimate business. DOJ time is better spent chasing
ENRON. They are REAL criminals.
Ralph Hudson
5174 Apple Road
Springdale AR 72762
501-750-3488
[email protected]
MTC-00011474
From: Charles Guatney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:18pm
Subject: What is the problem?
Why is the government even involved with this issue? Microsoft
works as a company, bringing wealth and success to the nation and
countless hundreds of thousands of people who rely on what MS
produces. To have the imperial federal government intrude on such
matters defies logic. Microsoft produces wealth, whilst the imperial
federal levithan consumes wealth.
Get out of this issue and, instead, promote Microsoft's well
being. The federal government should stop consuming the nation's
intellectual and financial resources.
Charles L. Guatney, Professor Emeritus
Central Washington University
445 Chatuge Trail
Hiawassee, Georgia 30546
706-896-6065
MTC-00011475
From: Beverly Ann Sowell, REALTOR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This lawsuit should be settled NOW on the terms agreed. Let
Microsoft give computers to schools as their ``punishment.'' I feel
this lawsuit existed because of competitors using the government to
attack Microsoft. Microsoft has done extremely good things for me
and for computer users at very reasonable prices. Leave Microsoft
alone, so it can continue innovating good products and contributing
to the IT revolution.
MTC-00011476
From: Lalitha Mahajan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let Microsoft's side win.
[[Page 25461]]
MTC-00011477
From: Jan-Erik Rottinghuis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: MSN settlement
Dear sirs:
Job protection is surely on the minds of Attorney generals.their
own? Can we just get on with innovation and competition: do it in
the marketplace please, not the court rooms. The only people to
benefit are not the consumers but the lawyers.
Regards
Jan-Erik Rottinghuis
President & CEO
PubliCARD, Inc.
Office +1-212-651-31.19
US Mobile +1-917-691-54.61
GSM +33-609.617.787
E-Mail [email protected]
MTC-00011478
From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft
The point of antitrust investigation is to protect the public
interest from businesses that abuse the customer. Microsoft has
always sold an excellent product at well below fair market prices.
Take Windows XP for example, it's priced less than $200 while its
biggest competitor "Linux" sells for over $300 and the origin of
Linux was a "free" program. How can this be monopolistic? DOJ,
please don't screw up another business like you did to AT&T. That
"breakup" sure didn't do much for the customer.
Jim Krass
1226 Main St.
Windermere, FL 34786
MTC-00011479
From: rcw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please get off Microsoft and all the other business people whose
efforts make life more of a joy. I am sick of a bunch of lawyers and
politicians becoming the blood suckers of the business world. Get
off now. Dick Welch. 6810 Rocky Road Blanco Texas. 78606.
MTC-00011480
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I firmly believe that it is absolutely important to proceed with
the proposed settlement and avoid further litigation which, in my
opinion, hurts our economy.
Sincerely yours
M. Bernegger
MTC-00011481
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settlement proposals of Microsoft go beyond that recommended by
the Court of Appeals. In the interest of fairness--and the economy
of the United States--this matter needs to be closed. I urge you to
accept the settlement proposals of Microsoft without further delay.
Jerry Effenberger
17511 32nd. Ave. N.E.
Seattle, Washington 98155
MTC-00011482
From: Scott McNairy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's competitors are wishing that they had and trying to
create ground to stand on by politically pressing on thru their host
state's attorney generals with this litigation that claims that
Microsoft is a Monopoly. But the fact remains that if you ask these
companies who their number one competitor is--they will tell you
Microsoft. Not because Microsoft is a monopoly but because Microsoft
can do it all--on any device, any time, and anywhere. The lawsuit
should not proceed any further against Microsoft to pad the pockets
of Microsoft's competitors.
MTC-00011483
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft and DOJ crafted settlement goes beyond what was
needed for a settlement. It should be accepted and the remaining
states should accept it too, although they will not be satisfied
until Microsoft is dismantled to the benefit of Sun and AOL who the
dissenting states claim as plaintiffs. The true plaintiffs should be
consumers but consumers are not considered by the dissenting states.
The only concern the dissenting states have are SUN and AOL. Sun and
AOL own the Attorney Generals in those dissenting states. And this
`bought and paid for' justice is not in the public interest. The
dissenting states should not be listened to as they will only settle
when Microsoft is destroyed.
However antitrust is not about propping up competitors and such
further sanctions against Microsoft, such as forcing Microsoft to
fully disclose its software source code or breaking the company into
pieces, should not be entertained.
Additional measures are not required.
Thank You,
Bruce Garrick
Sr. Application Developer
Total info Services
88-634-9942 x2484
[email protected]
``In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about
life: it goes on.''--Robert Frost
MTC-00011484
From: Dwain Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This note is in regards to the Microsoft Settlement. It is my
belief the settlement that has been proposed punishes Microsoft far
more that is deserved. I consider Microsofts' actions to be nothing
more than hard business tactics and they succeeded based on public
demand. Nevertheless, the poposed settlement calls for support plan
to our
nations schools, this will provide badly needed resources and has no
long term affect on the use of Microsoft products. They will
continue to succeed based on their features and the public demand
for those features. If they fail to provide needed features, their
sales will decline. Apple Computer made an attempt in the late 80's
to influence our nations young with a program that provided deeply
discounted equipment to students. History shows that this attempt
failed; computer users and business will use the solutions that are
cost effective and that provide interoperability amount all
programs. The company that provides this will attract new customers.
As a data processing professional, I am well aware of the speed
at which new software and features are being developed and deployed.
The courts seem to find themselves in a position of hearing
testimony and making rulings based on (obsolete) technology.
It is in the best interest of the USA economy, of the Microsoft
Shareholders, and of Microsoft to settle this and move on.
MTC-00011485
From: Marshall A. Brown II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I believe as a citizen of this country that further litigation
serves no purpose but to waste my tax dollars and does not do what
is important for the economy. Why waste Millions in tax revenues
that could be used for the war effort or education in this country,
when the benefit to be gained ``Might'' lower the price of the OS a
few dollars and save the average consumer, with a PC, $10 over
several years? and of course $10 to the price of a $600 makes little
difference.
Marshall Brown II
Dir. of Business Development
MTC-00011486
From: Joyce Harness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:32pm
Subject: Msft case
I feel this case should be settled once and for all. Msft has
made tremendous contributions to consumers, have helped a lot of
people and it is time to stop the nine states from continuing this
suit.
Thank you.
Joyce Harness
3015 NW 73rd Seattle, WA 98117
206-784-9126
MTC-00011487
From: Terry Moore-SPS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think one only needs to look at the states that are opposed to
this settlement to understand that most of them are more concerned
in protecting Microsoft's competitors than they are in protecting
the general public. Utah and Mass. are prime examples of this!
Microsoft and other high technology companies have lead our economy
for the past 9 years to new heights.
[[Page 25462]]
Now that the economy is
sluggish to say the least, let move on and let Microsoft lead again
rather than wallowing around in this litigation hogwash we have seen
for the past 2 years. This is a fair settlement for all parties
involved including the general public.
Regards
Terry Moore
MTC-00011488
From: Jim Hurst
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/15/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
To Whom if May Concern:
I strongly support the settlement of the Microsoft litigation in
accordance with the agreement reached with the DOJ. Further
litigation is non cost effective and a waste of taxpayer money.
Thank you.
James R. Hurst
2847 Butter Creek Drive
Pasadena, CA 91107
MTC-00011489
From: George Gillespie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It would be my greatest hope that this case against Microsoft be
settled soon. That way we can get on with our lives and let
Microsoft be free to innovate, with the result of MSFT hiring more
people and helping the US Economy rebound a little faster.
Sincerely, George R. Gillespie
MTC-00011490
From: John (038) Dorothy Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft
Sirs: Microsoft software has been a boon to me since I started
late on PCs and now am 84. To have software on my PC that is all
coordinated(with no language problems) makes it easy for my wife & I
to pursue our genealogy and family history projects. The ``others''
only cover small areas and are complicated, both in installing, but
in maintaining. If you want to go after monopolies take on people
like AOL, QWEST and the various cable companies.
Just leave our good software alone!
Thank you,
Wilbur T & Dorothy H Johnston [email protected]
MTC-00011491
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Reneta B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am writing to express an opinion to the judge of the federal
trial court considering the Microsoft settlement. I have been told
that I can file written comments with the United States Department
of Justice by January 28, 2002, and that those comments can be sent
by email. I am concerned over a decision by Microsoft that impacts
our firm. I believe it is an example of Microsoft wielding
unreasonable power over 3rd-party software through the non-level
playing field approach of their operating systems.
I am the Corporate Secretary of Milliman USA, Inc. We are a
nationwide (and international) firm of consultants and actuaries. We
started in Seattle in the 1940's, and have grown to nearly 2000
employees in over 30 offices. Computing is key to our business. We
predominantly use Microsoft operating systems and office software.
We use Lotus Notes for email and groupware. We chose Notes a number
of years ago because of its unique capabilities. It has become
integral to our business function over the years. Our consultants
work long hours, both in the office and (at times) at home. Our
agreement with Lotus allows our employees to have Notes on their
home computers as well as on their office machine. Notes and
Microsoft operating systems have always coexisted well together.
We have been made aware that Microsoft will end its support of
Notes on its XP home version. They say it is a business application.
It is interesting that the biggest competitor for Notes is Microsoft
Outlook. Microsoft is not declaring Outlook to be a business
application.
If Microsoft is successful in their strategy, and Notes does not
work on the XP home version, we may need to provide our employees
with an expensive upgrade to XP professional for their homes. Not
only is this costly, but our employees will have to give up features
of the XP home version that are aimed at the family: audio, video,
etc. These are attractive features for the home. Please relay my
concern to the judge of the federal trial court. As a business, it
is imperative that we at Milliman treat our customers well.
Microsoft's decision appears to be directed at Lotus, but impacts us
significantly. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the
business community at large to have Microsoft be able to advantage
itself due to it providing both operating system and application
software.
Sincerely,
Brian S. Pollack
[email protected]
1301 Fifth Ave.
Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
cc: Tim Muth, Esq.
MTC-00011492
From: monaphil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am a computer trainer and have been for many years. I'd just
like to say that the introduction of Windows has made my life much
easier as the Windows product has standardized all software.
Microsoft has provided an invaluable service to the population and
software students everywhere by providing a standard upon which all
software is based. In my perspective, this is an invaluable service
rather than a `monopoly' situation. I think the Microsoft suit
should be settled and taxpayers' money should go elsewhere to truly
fight injustice.
Sincerely,
Mona Mehta Steffen
3731 N. Military Rd
Arlington VA 22207
MTC-00011493
From: Don Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft
Settlement. While I know that both sides have their views (backed by
their own facts) Microsoft is still one of Americas finest companies
ever. They play hardball (as all large companies have to), they
stepped out-of-bounds, got called on it, they've already paid a high
price and will no doubt pay a hell-of-a-lot more to settle and
settle we should. Many of the states holding out are doing so for
political reasons and that's an injustice to our country. Let's
move-on and let Microsoft continue to be the leader in their
industry. Microsoft is a great American company and I'm proud to
support them and a quick settlement for the good of our economy and
country. For the few states that are holding out, let-it-go and get
on with life and compete instead of complaining.
Don Leslie
MDB & Associates, Inc.
[email protected]
MTC-00011494
From: Paul Larmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think you should settle this case now. It is in the best
interest of all consumers and our economy to stop this litigation.
Paul Larmon
MTC-00011495
From: Don Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US DOJ. Please settle the case with Microsoft. The current
proposal seems fair, and we need to move forward and let the
technology industry get back to a sense of normalcy. If there is
continued doubt about one of the most successful companies in the
industry, it will be hard for vendors, partners, and customers to
make informed decisions about the future. Please don't let a few
competitors try to disrupt one of the most successful runs of
technological innovation this country has seen.
Thanks.
Don Barren
MTC-00011496
From: Louis F Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a home user and believe that it is time to approve the
settlement because it seems that the terms of the settlement are
fair for all involved. Also I feel that since the 9-11 event it is
more imperative that we get business back to normal as soon as
possible.
Regards,
Louis Schneider
[[Page 25463]]
MTC-00011497
From: Chuck & Cindi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:37pm
Subject: Please Settle the Microsoft Case
It is in the publics best interest, the economies best interest,
and the tech industry's best interest to put an end to this
litigation and settle the case promptly.
This has never been a case brought on nor fought in the best
interest of the consumer. It was brought on by the executives of
Microsoft's competitors and has always been predominantly in their
own personal/corporate best interests. Please let corporations and
their executives battle out market share in their own arenas--not in
the political or court system. Especially in such a fast growing and
competitive arena such as the tech sector.
Thank you.
C. Solomon
MTC-00011498
From: JACK PURSER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:38pm
Subject: Micro antitrust
Why don't you leave this company alone, pretty soon NO company
will want to do business in the US because of actions by money
grubbers like you!!
Jack Purser Sr.
MTC-00011499
From: Gary Smith (Numar)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:38pm
Subject: Why is Microsoft's stranglehold on computing being
supported by U SDOJ?
I am so frustrated that I felt compelled to write. I have been
having considerable difficulty with instability of Windows98. After
months of trying to get Linux up and running I made the horrible
mistake of purchasing Windows XP. It is a disaster. First time I
have upgraded an operating system in 15 years where the upgrade is
worse than the previous problem. Of course the non-working OS
software is non-returnable (because Bill Gates doesn't have enough
money yet I suppose?). Technical support is almost impossible to
get. I should have just sent $100.00 to the RNC. At least I would
have felt better about who got my money. This guy is not right. He
really needs to be reigned in. As for me, it's $100.00 in the trash
and back to wrestling with Linux.
Best Regards,
Gary Smith
Principal Mechanical Engineer
NUMAR, Div. of Halliburton
610.251.0116 (main #)
610.722.4576 (direct #))
610.296.9651 (fax)
[email protected]
MTC-00011500
From: KENNETH J RUSZCZYK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:38pm
Subject: MSFT SETTLEMENT
I feel that anything that benefits the consumers is best for the
economy. Why is it that Politicians, who can't run the country in an
orderly fashion. Which is their job, by the way! Feel that they know
best how to run the economy? The government officials are so ``out
of touch'' with rest of the population. That most of their decisions
are only for themselves & for those who contribute to their campaign
chests. One of the most important reasons that the US economy has
done so well. Is that there wasn't too much government involvement
in the early stages of it's growth. Now the politicians think that
since this country is so great & strong. That they were the ones who
made it so. It wasn't them, it was the people who built & grew on
this land & made it productive. As usual, the politicians take all
the credit for things that go well in which they had no ``hand'' in.
Then deny any involvement in the things that go wrong in which they
were in charge of. I know there is not much, if anything I can do to
altered their decisions. I do vote but I'm not thrilled about any of
the candidates, except those who want to make less government.
I don't look forward to the end of my life but at least I do
know that I won't have to put up with government after it either.
Kenneth Ruszczyk
MTC-00011501
From: Sharon Corboy
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 1:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
its a real shame that a few A.G. WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS are
holding up a reasoned settlement and getting on WITH THE BUSINESS OF
GROWING OUR ECONOMY THOMAS A CORBOY GIG HARBOR WASH. 98335
MTC-00011502
From: Lois Tilles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I hope that you will finalize the Microsoft settlement as
proposed. It is tough and fair. We must get on with business and not
wring the life out of successful companies who agree to cooperate.
Lois Tilles
415-310-7654 (phone)
[email protected]
MTC-00011503
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to settle this case and move on.
Mike Mehler
Labor Relations
Southern California Edison
MTC-00011504
From: MaryAnn(u)Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
Time to stop this madness. These attacks on our American
Companies are the main reason our economy and stock markets are in
the dumps. Time to get the lawyers out of Washington's Federal
Justice Department and get back to business.
Mary Ann Walters
Brecksville, Ohio
MTC-00011505
From: Subhash Grover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case should settle as agreed upon. This will help the
economy to get out of recession.
Subhash Grover
MTC-00011506
From: Schober, Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Forget Big Tobacco. Forget Microsoft. I'm going to make you a
star: I am shocked and appalled to learn of a potent delivery system
that luridly and unfairly bundles a highly addictive substance in a
seemingly innocuous way. This delivery system threatens and harms
the national interests in our food distribution system. I am seeking
an immediate stop order be issued to the industry. In addition, I
would like to be granted whistle blower status in this case.
In particular I am referring to the bundling of sugar in
prepared foods. As opposed to simply dusting foods with sugar, which
can be casually detached (brushed off), food preparers needlessly
bundle this highly addictive substance in their products.
Furthermore, this delivery system (and it is a delivery system--the
amount of sugar in the product can be controlled in the recipe) is
used to create an artificial craving for a product within the
unsuspecting purchaser.
I urge you and your colleagues to take up this vital matter
post-haste, and send me my whistle blower check.
I anxiously remain awaiting your response,
Lawrence Schober
MTC-00011507
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It may concern: I think the remaining nine states are
obsessed with punishing Microsoft. They have taken up a personal
position against Microsoft and Bill Gates only because they do not
like either, just as Judge Jackson did. This is outrageous
unnecessary and a complete waste of time and money to their
constituents in those states. The Justice department reached a
decision which was fair and brought this long legal process to and
end. The nine remaining states should join in, rather then look at
what they see as a company which they believe performs unfairly.
Look at a company which has been primarily responsible for the huge
technology movement throughout the world in the last ten years with
their software moving information around the world, allowing world
markets to develop faster and therefore creating jobs throughout the
world.
Joe Cirillo, a patriot, business man and consumer. I speak on
behalf of many friends and my family.
MTC-00011508
From: Sherri Wender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:41pm
[[Page 25464]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
I am writing in support of your proposed antitrust settlement
with 9 states and Microsoft. The settlement is fair, and it is time
to move on in the interest of fairness, competitiveness, and for the
sake of the economy.
Thank you,
Sherri Wender
21464 President Point Rd
Kingston, WA 98346
[email protected]
MTC-00011509
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case, we have so much going on now, with the
economy and the other problems we are facing. We need to set some
real priorities, this has gone on long enough.
Marlene Pavlow
MTC-00011510
From: Dr Whom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Anti-Trust Trust,
Please leave Microsoft alone, go after some dishonest
politicians!!
Thank you,
monty johnson
MTC-00011511
From: Bradley Bobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:42pm
Subject: accept MicroSoft settlement
Please accept the MicroSoft settlement, and stop harassing them
already! Go bother someone doing some harm instead of wasting any
more money on that nonsense!
Thank you,
Dr. Bradley Bobbs
6862 Hayvenhurst Ave.
Van Nuys, CA 91406
(818)947-3192
MTC-00011512
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Court Ruling a Joke
Hello.
I would like to inform you that the recent court ruling in favor
of Microsoft is an absolute joke. This in light of the fact that
Microsoft was found guilty of using it's monopoly to further it's
cause. Now the DOJ virtually guarantees more of the same by allowing
the company to distribute more software, and thus have a stronger
monopoly in the market. What kind of judgment is that?
Sincerely,
Jim Mosher
MTC-00011513
From: Roseanne Woo
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement with Microsoft is fair and reasonable. Do not
allow the 9 renegade states stall the process. The country has
wasted enough energy during the long-drawn-out lawsuit. The time has
come for settlement so that a great company can re-direct its
resourcefulness to its core business. At the same time, the
government needs to adjust its thinking to the new economy.
Roseanne Woo-Haltresht
1973 Lord Fitzwalter Drive,
Miamisburg, OH 45342
MTC-00011514
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Justice Department:
Stop hurting taxpayers. Anything that hurts Microsofts, hurts
the investors, the economy, and the country. Let the CEO's of
envious companies work hard as Bill Gates did. Stop the madness!
It's about time.
Graciela Beecher
2904 Shawnee Dr.
Fort Wayne, IN 46807
MTC-00011515
From: Christina Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the case
U.S. vs. Microsoft is flawed in the following ways:
The PFJ does not End Microsofts Monopoly and Even Allows
Microsoft to expand its Monopoly into Other Technology Markets. The
deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and instead
guarantees Microsofts monopoly will survive and be allowed to expand
into new markets. Microsoft has always found it advantageous to
leverage its operating system monopoly position in order to maximize
its own profits, which many of us have experienced firsthand.
The PFJ Does Not Adequately Address Anticompetitive Behavior
Identified by the Appeals Court. The PFJ Incorporates Such Large
Loopholes to Its Enforcement Provisions as to Render Enforcement
Meaningless.
The PFJ Does Not Provide an Effective Enforcement Mechanism for
the Weak Restrictions it does Implement. The proposed settlement
requires a three-man compliance team to oversee Microsofts
compliance with the Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person,
the Justice Department another, and the third will be chosen by the
two people already appointed. In essence, Microsoft will control
half the team. This new team will not be allowed to inform the
public of their work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work
of the committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement
proceeding. The committees sole remedy for infractions is for them
to inform the Justice Department of the infraction and then the
Justice Department will have to conduct their own research and
commence litigation to stop the infraction. The Justice Department
does not need a compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is
doing something wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke
screen.
The PFJ Does not deny to Microsoft the Fruits of its Past
Statutory Violations. Under
the proposed settlement, Microsoft is only marginally penalized for
its anticompetitive misdeeds. Every court involved with this case
has acknowledged that Microsoft broke the anti-trust laws, yet under
the terms of the proposed Agreement, Microsoft would be allowed to
retain almost all of the profits gained from these activities. Nor
does the PFJ make an accounting of all the gains Microsoft made
through its illegal activities, nor does it try and compensate those
harmed by Microsofts misdeeds. Through this proposed settlement, the
Justice Department is sending a very clear (and very dangerous)
message that anticompetitive behavior is totally acceptable. Every
large potential monopolist is being told that they can get away with
this sort of illegal behavior without fear of losing any of the
profits made from such conduct. There is every incentive for future
monopolists (most definitely including Microsoft) to engage in this
type of predatory conduct and no incentive not to.
Thank you for your time.
Christina Bishop
MTC-00011516
From: Jeff W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to see this settlement accepted by the 9 remaining
states and the industry move on.
MTC-00011517
From: Tom (038) Wilma Llewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:33pm
Subject: Opinion
To Whom It May Concern:
I feel a reasonable agreement has been reached in the
``Microsoft Lawsuit'' and further litigation does not benefit the
country. It seems as if this lawsuit precipitated the current
financial situation in this country. I say ``Enough already'' and
let us move on.
Thomas Llewellyn
593 Vintage Dr.
Elkton, OR 97436
MTC-00011518
From: Steve Dehekker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe that it would be an appropriate remedy to split
Microsoft Corporation into at least two, completely independent
components--one that develops software applications and the other
that develops operating systems. This would promote competition and
innovation by providing incentive for the applications software
entity to develop for platforms other than Windows. It would also
serve as incentive to make the Windows operating system more
compatible with application software developed by companies other
than Microsoft.
I am a non-technical consumer who uses computers, including
Microsoft products, on a daily basis. My observations are based upon
my actual experience and informal observation of this case for many
years.
Thank you for your consideration.
[[Page 25465]]
Sincerely,
Stephen E. DeHekker, AIA
Hastings+Chivetta Architects, Inc.
700 Corporate Park Drive, Suite 400
St. Louis, MO 63105
(Main) 314-863-5717
(Direct) 314-863-4361 Ext 138
[email protected]
MTC-00011519
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:45pm
Subject: settlement
pleases settle this case and get on with life....i am sure these
attorneys have more to do than make headlines in their state using
this high profile case to further their political ambitions
.........
MTC-00011520
From: Tom Moore
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IF YOU WOULD SETTLE THE
MICROSOFT CASE AND MOVE ON TO MORE PRESSING MATTERS.
THOMAS L. MOORE
MTC-00011521
From: David Brookes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft case should be settled
This case should be settle at once. We need to move forward not
backward. This case was brought upon Microsoft because they would
not give money to politicians in Washington. Why is every time the
USG decides to help us we get screwed?
Are the prices of computers going up or down? Down is the
correct answer and not only are they going down but you get more for
your money. Name one other industry where that is happening?
This case has been a total waste of tax payers dollars. The only
real reason the states will not settle is because of poor fiscal
policy they are broke. And look here, Microsoft has 40B in cash...so
lets go steal it. Your no different then criminals but since you
make the rules so your always right.
I vote and the best policy is to vote out everyone who is in
office. Ross Perot said it best in 1990, ``It's time to clean the
shit out of the barn''.
Dave Brookes
MTC-00011522
From: david milton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We have in place a fair settlement that needs to be adopted in
order for the industry to commit reasouces for further inovation.
Without the settlement as it stands we cannot expect companies to
invest in ideas that that they may not be able to control in the
future. Settle this and lets get back to leading the world into the
next age. David Milton, 5728 Meadowhaven Dr., Plano TX 75093
MTC-00011523
From: Mark Johnson (PREMIER)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:45pm
Subject: The Tunney Act review--Microsoft
It is my understanding that The Tunney Act review period is
still open. I understand the Department of Justice seeks public
comment on its proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states and
Microsoft, and the public comment's close on Monday, January 28. I
also understand the settlement is not guaranteed until after the
review ends and the District Court determines whether the settlement
is indeed in the public interest.
It is my opinion that the provisions of the agreement are tough,
reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go far beyond the
findings of Court of Appeals ruling. Still, while consumers such as
I overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is good for me and the
American economy, I and every citizen I have come in contact with
overwhelmingly want to see this move beyond this litigation, it is
also my understanding that nine states have refused to join the
settlement. In fact some, including Utah Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, are urging
citizens via email or Web site to submit their comments to the DoJ
during the Tunney review period.
Thank you for your review of my opinion,
Mark Johnson
MTC-00011524
From: TOM R MCMAHON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I SUPPORT THE LITIGATION BY THE 9 STATES AGAINST MICROSOFT TO
PRODUCE A FAIRER DEAL FOR THE AVERAGE CONSUMER.
TOM MCMAHON/ SAN DIEGO
MTC-00011526
From: Mark Herrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
CC: [email protected]@ inetgw,gws@clickactio...
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally: The Court should disallow, in its
current form, the proposed settlement between the U.S. Department of
Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v. Microsoft (hereinafter referred to
as the ?Agreement?). There are two main reasons this Court should
disallow the Agreement.
1) The Agreement completely ignores the standard laid down by
the DC Appellate Court.
2) The Agreement runs contrary to the public interest of the
people of the United States and therefore should be held in
violation of the Tunney Act.
I. The Agreement fails to meet the Appellate Court's Remedy
Standards. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (hereinafter referred to as the ?Appellate Court?) in a 7-0
decision upheld the District Court's decision that Microsoft
violated the antitrust laws and was liable for such illegal conduct.
The Appellate Court furthered ruled that any remedy found by the
District Court must ?terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the
fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any
future anticompetitive activity.? The Agreement fails to meet any of
these three standards.
A. Terminate the Monopoly. The deal fails to terminate the
Microsoft monopoly, and instead guarantees Microsoft's monopoly will
survive and be allowed to expand into new markets. All other
businesses in the U.S. market that have a ninety percent market
share are considered per-se monopolies and are regulated or have
some sort of government oversight (i.e. utilities, local phone
companies, cable companies etc.). This is done because it is in such
a company's best interest (in the interest of their shareholders) to
abuse their position. In other words, to gain maximum shareholder
value, they are almost required to abuse their position. Why is
Microsoft allowed a waiver to this general rule? Does Microsoft not
try to gain optimum share value for their shareholders?
B. Deny to Microsoft the Fruits of its Past Statutory
Violations. Under the Agreement, Microsoft is not penalized for any
past misdeeds. In other words, they are being allowed to retain all
the profits gained from their illegal activities. Every court
involved with this case has acknowledged that Microsoft broke the
anti-trust laws. Through this Agreement, the Justice Department is
sending the message that this sort of anticompetitive behavior is
acceptable. Every large potential monopolistic company is being told
that they can get away with this sort of illegal behavior without
fear of losing any of the gains made from such conduct. In other
words, get away with as much as you can until the Justice Department
brings an action. There is every incentive for future monopolists
(including Microsoft) to engage in this type of predatory conduct
and no incentive not to.
C. Prevent any Future Anticompetitive Activity. The Agreement
fails to prevent any future anticompetitive activity because it
completely ignores anticompetitive behavior highlighted by the
Appellate Court. In addition, for the conduct the Agreement does try
to remedy, it creates such huge loopholes to the rules it does
establish as to render them completely useless. Lastly, the
Agreement provides no effective enforcement mechanism for the rules
it does establish.
1. The Agreement Does Not Address Anticompetitive behavior
identified by the Appeals Court.
a) Retaliation. The settlement does not address Microsoft
ability to retaliate against would-be competitors and to take the
intellectual property of competitors doing business with Microsoft.
The Appeals court found such past conduct by Microsoft highly
egregious yet the Agreement does not address these issues.
b) Bolting. The Agreement does not address the issue that fueled
consumer criticism and which gave rise to this antitrust case in
1998: Microsoft's decision to bind--or ``bolt''--Internet Explorer
to the Windows operating system in order to crush its browser
competitor Netscape. This settlement gives Microsoft ?sole
discretion? to unilaterally determine that other products or
services which don't have anything to do with operating a computer
are nevertheless
[[Page 25466]]
part of a ``Windows Operating System product.''
This creates a new exemption from parts of antitrust law for
Microsoft and would leave Microsoft free to bolt financial services,
cable television, or the Internet itself into Windows.
2. The Agreement Incorporates Such Large Loopholes to Its
Restrictions on Microsoft as to Render Such Restrictions Useless.
a) Middleware. As part of the Agreement, Microsoft is required
to allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs
and allow them to install icons or links to competing middleware
programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers are not
allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and
delete all the competitor's middleware.
b) Communication Protocols. The Agreement states that Microsoft
must now share information on how its middleware and server software
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute
separate from windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked. In
addition, Microsoft does not have to disclose this coding
information if Microsoft deems such disclosure would harm the
company's security or software licensing.
(1) Software it Does Not Distribute Separate from Windows. This
is a huge loophole of ``Bolting'' that was discussed above. If
Microsoft wants to drive a competitor out of business, they just
attach the specific type of software the competitor is involved with
to their Windows platform. Once they do that, they do not have to
share the coding information that allows the competitors software to
work with Windows, thus driving the competitor out of business. Once
the competitor is out of business, Microsoft can separate the
software from the Windows package, sell it separately and derive
huge margins.
(2) Viable Business. Microsoft does not have to disclose their
information to companies that in ``their view'' do not have a
``viable business''. This loophole will allow Microsoft to prevent
new software start-ups from forming because Microsoft could decide
they are not a ``viable business''. Who can really say which new
start-ups is a ``viable business''? Preventing new companies from
starting is undeniably bad for competition, and therefore, the
consumer.
(3) Harm to Company's Security or Software Licensing. Microsoft
does not have to share coding information if they believe that such
disclosure would cause harm to the Company's security or software
licensing. There is no provision to say who is to make this
determination so it is clearly up to Microsoft. Could not Microsoft
make the argument that sharing coding with any software or P.C.
Manufacturer would endanger its security of software licensing?
c) Bribing Competitors. The Agreement states that Microsoft
``shall not enter into any agreement'' to pay a software vendor not
to develop or distribute software that would compete with
Microsoft's products. However, another provision in the Agreement
permits those payments and deals when they are ``reasonably
necessary.'' Who is the ultimate arbiter of when these deals would
be ``reasonably necessary''? The Agreement does not specify so
Microsoft will be allowed to make that decision.
3. The Agreement Does Not Provide an Effective Enforcement
Mechanism for the Weak Restrictions it does Implement. The Agreement
requires a three-man compliance team to oversee Microsoft's
compliance with the Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person,
the Justice Department another, and the third will be chosen by the
two people already appointed. In essence, Microsoft will control
half the team. This new team will not be allowed to inform the
public of their work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work
of the committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement
proceeding. The committee's sole remedy for infractions is for them
to inform the Justice Department of the infraction and then the
Justice Department will have to conduct their own research and
commence litigation to stop the infraction. The Justice Department
does not need a compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is
doing something wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke
screen.
II. Violation of the Tunney Act. The Tunney Act clearly states
that the court should disallow any agreement between an anti-trust
violator and the Justice Department if such agreement is ``contrary
to the public interest''. It is hard to imagine an Agreement that
would violate the public trust more than the proposed Agreement. How
could an agreement that ignores all three required remedies laid
down by the Appellate court to remedy the situation (terminate the
monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory
violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive activity)
possibly be within the public interest. If this Agreement is upheld
and then appealed, how could the Appellate Court approve this
agreement when it directly violates its own mandate. It would have
to find this Agreement to be in direct violation of its own mandate
and the public interest. The Appellate Court's decision needs to be
respected and this Agreement must be found void.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and should you have
any questions about the above letter please feel free to contact me
at any time. Sincerely yours,
Mark Herrick
Director of Non-Profit Services
ClickAction
Nasdaq: CLAC
http://www.ClickAction.com
CORPORATE OFFICE
2197 E. Bayshore Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Direct Line: 650-463-3963 Fax: 650-473-3954
MTC-00011527
From: Richard Yochum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:51pm
Subject: Concerns about DOJ's focus and who they are working for
I remain annoyed by the 9 states that refuse to settle w/
Microsft. I believe their Attorney
Generals have been unduly influenced by Microsoft's competitors,
who long ago determined that if they couldn't beat Microsoft in the
marketplace, they would do it in court.
In today's global economy, it seems misguided to legally impose
restrictions on one of the US' most productive and recognized
companies. Has Microsoft shafted investors and employees like Enron?
No! There is absolutely no comparison.
Is DOJ going to prosecute the criminal level of 'doing business'
at Enron? At Arthur Anderson? These are the type of companies and
individuals that need Federal and State scrutiny and prosecution.
These types make a mockery, an oxymoron, of the concept, ``business
ethics.''
Will the Feds and State go after these recognized political
supporters with the same pit bull determination they attacked
Microsoft? Probably not, because in this case, mostly lowly
taxpayers and wage earners were harmed. People who cannot fill the
coffers of the political parties and their Attorney General lackeys
like Sun, Oracle, and the other disparagers of Microsoft.
Let's spend our tax dollars to defend Americans from being
bilked by the likes of the criminal scum that made the decisions at
Enron and Arthur Anderson. Let their comrades know that such
behavior will result in crushing penalties and serious jail time!
Allow Microsoft to advance its business model and lead the American
economy into a prosperous new era.
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.
MTC-00011528
From: Shaoyu Zhou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft Settlement is in the public interest. It
provides a fair and effective way to address the concerns brought by
this lawsuit. By resolving this issue quickly and effectively
through this settlement, the whole computer industry can move
forward, which in turn stimulates the growth of our economy in this
difficult time. The remaining nine states that refused to settle are
clearly working for Microsoft's competitors. The penalty proposal
they have made only provides benefits to those Microsoft's
competitors by completely disabling Microsoft's ability to compete.
These remaining states are being very unfair to a US company that
has naturely grown into a worldwide dominating company by its
marketing and technology (and not through merging other companies).
Shaoyu
MTC-00011529
From: vicki winn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:51pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Suit
I am aghast that this case as gone on for as long as it has for
an issue that appears to me to benefit no one! Clearly Microsoft has
developed a superior product and is therefore the product of choice.
This does not make their polices nor practices a ``monopoly''. I
[[Page 25467]]
urge a quick an speedy settlement! I strongly believe the offer on
the table is fair and benefits all.
MTC-00011530
From: Jerry N. Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen, get this thing settled! The cost for everyone
involved is far more than any award $'s. Let Microsoft get back to
work, let the litigations cease. Let's get on with using their
superb products. Hopefully Microsoft has learned a hard lesson.
Thank you,
Jerry Phillips
1327 10th St. Dr. NW
Hickory, NC 29601
828-261-0200
MTC-00011531
From: Schober, Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice:
The provisions of the Microsoft settlement agreement are tough,
reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings
of Court of Appeals ruling. You are doing a disservice to computer
customers and, given Microsoft's world leading position for this
product, to the nation. You are hampering trade by your excessive
involvement of government.
By pursuing a reckless agenda of attacking Microsoft you are
neither representing justice, nor my interests as a computer user
and an American.
MTC-00011532
From: Dan Warrensford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Notice:
Any person, government or corporate entity that attacks a
Capitalist Institution for doing what Capitalist Institutions are
supposed to do, i.e., create high quality goods and services
efficiently, for affordable prices, is neo-Fascistic at best.
So, stop acting like Mussolini's philosophical heirs, get out of
Microsoft's corporate face, and go after some real criminals--like
the ENRON executives. Just DO it.
Dan Warrensford
40 Uranus Ave.
Merritt Island FL 32953-3158
(321) 453-2217; [email protected]
MTC-00011533
From: Bartucci, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I would encourage you to bring the Microsoft Anti-Trust suit to
a rapid conclusion. It's gone on long enough and the effect on the
consumer (which I realize is irrelevant) will be negative in the
long run. I am a professional software developer and I use Microsoft
as well as many other vendor's products every day.
Frankly, I'm happy to have a Microsoft around--without them
(i.e., a single OS source) we would not have a commercially viable
desktop computer, especially for home use. Unix (and all its
variants such as Linux) will never be an alternative to a Windows
OS, not because of MS business practice but because of the product
itself. As a professional, I use Unix everyday-- I prefer to work in
a Windows environment simply because there are so many more tools
available for Windows (which seems to me flies in the face of the
judge's decision). And as far as the browsers are concerned, the
Internet Explorer browser is far superior to any other browser
available. I have several variants of the Netscape browser installed
``just in case'' but I hardly ever use them--usually because they
simply don't work! If Netscape had a problem with Microsoft, it was
because they had an inferior product-- no lawsuit is going to change
that fact. I'm glad Microsoft chooses to bundle it with all their OS
products--it saves me the trouble of downloading it.
Please bring this case to a swift conclusion. We as a society
have gained nothing from either the case itself or its outcome. And
there is nothing further to be gained by dragging this out.
John Bartucci Lockheed Martin Naval Electronic Surveillance
Systems--Akron
1210 Massillon Rd
Akron, OH 44315
330-796-2395
MTC-00011534
From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just settle the case, get this over and done with!!!
Stephen Quinn
MTC-00011535
From: marty stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the Justice Department to accept the proposed Microsoft
settlement. This issue has gone for too long, and has proved a
detrimental not only to Microsoft but to the entire tech industry.
Our government should be fostering industrial growth in lieu of
penalizing creative industries that strengthen our economy.
Martin Stephens
2020 Deer Trail
Warsaw, Indiana 46580
MTC-00011536
From: Jim Stoneburner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time for the US Government and Microsoft to stop wasting
Time and Money. The time could be better spent by parties and the
Money which belongs to the Tax Payers could be better utilized by
the Tax Payers.
This lawsuit has been an obvious ploy by certain disgruntled
Companies to get even with Microsoft through their Clinton contacts.
Stop the waste. We've wasted
enough Tax Payer money prosecuting (persecuting) Microsoft.
Microsoft in turn has wasted enough of it's revenues--which in
turn--has been paid for by increased sales prices to the consumer,
the Tax Payer.
Jim Stoneburner
Col USAF Retired
12779 Rueda Acayan
San Diego, CA 92128
MTC-00011537
From: Needham, James P
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:55pm
Subject: Let the Market Work!
I continue to be amazed by the ongoing litigation related to
Microsoft. From my view if there is any anti-competitive activity
going on it is that perpetrated by the DOJ, a few State AGs, and a
limited number of companies that made some poor business choices and
now what MSFT penalized because of their lack of wisdom. It is time
for the DOJ and the courts to put a stop to this judicial extortion
against MSFT. As a tax payer, let's allocate our legal resources to
stopping terrorism, going after the Enron's of the world and get off
the back of the only true innovator company in the last 40 years who
has created unprecedented wealth for our country, the public,
business and their share holders.
Regards,
James P. Needham
Regional Director Europe & Russia
Airline Marketing Services
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
P.O. Box 3707 MS 21-32
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207
Phone: 1-206-766-2585
US Mobile: 1-206-683-9105
Fax: 1-206-766-1030
e:mail [email protected]
CC:'msft(a)chasemellon.com'
MTC-00011538
From: Richard Manson-Hing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ settlement proposal seems to address the past (emphasis
on PAST) illegal practices by Microsoft to protect its monopoly
position in the market for its software and platforms. However, it
does little to ensure that future illegal monopolistic practices are
not engaged in. It particular, it does very little to address the
following:
Microsoft has had time to build up a significant barrier to
entry for competitive products. Even with the proposed settlement in
place, it would still be prohibitively expensive for would-be
competitors to try to enter any market space that Microsoft has
deemed theirs. There are already examples (maybe not necessarily
directly illegal) of where Microsoft will attempt to commit anti-
competitive behavior. For example, their recent financial investment
in Groove Networks seeks to tie-in an emerging technology (peer-to-
peer collaborative technology) to their Windows platform. The
Windows brand is simply too powerful to compete against. The damage
is already done!
[[Page 25468]]
is generally agreed today that new markets such as mobile
computing and small devices such as the Palm Pilot and Cellular
phones will eventually command a larger share of consumer interest
over the traditional PC. Microsoft has already begun to extend the
Windows monopolistic brand to these new areas. A technical review
board put in place to review Microsoft practices would be too slow
to be effective!
The settlement does nothing to compensate Microsoft competitors
for the harm that they have endured. These competitors (Netscape,
Java, Real Networks etc) are now engaged in an uphill battle to
achieve some prominence in the market. These companies would today
be in a much better market position if the anti-competitive
practices by Microsoft were never engaged in, in the first place.
Microsoft's strategy is to delay litigation until they can make come
up with a different method of monopolizing the market or until the
point is moot!
In closing, I disagree with the DOJ proposed settlement. It is a
way for the DOJ to simply ``give up'' while saving as much face as
possible. The DOJ needs to come up with a way to ``level the playing
field'' by giving Microsoft competitors ``a leg up''.
MTC-00011539
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
m appalled that the states are continuing action against
Microsoft. It is simply improper for the states to serve as lackeys
for the likes of Sun and Oracle against the interests of the
consumer. Of all the corporate abuses that affect me financially,
Microsoft is very low in the list.
I've been in the computing business for most of my working
career and have seen the huge benefits to the industry that
Microsoft has facilitated. The standard platforms that Microsoft has
provided make it possible for my company to succeed against much
larger competitors, by minimizing the advantages of size and
drastically shortening the development cycle. Price of servers is
coming down drastically due to the availability of Windows platforms
and Microsoft databases. Compare the prices of Microsoft based
servers with a Sun/Oracle of similar capability. And Microsoft
hasn't lowered prices to gain share only to raise them later. You
should be looking into Airline fare pricing for this abuse.
Give it a rest. Get out of the way of my business, you're
hurting me.
Sam List
135 Bow Street
Unit 4
Portsmouth, NH 03801
603 436 1271
MTC-00011540
From: Nick Rosenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I decided to take time out of my schedule today to write to you
concerning the importance of the recent U.S. vs. Microsoft
settlement. The settlement will benefit consumers and the public
interest, and therefore no further action should be taken against
Microsoft.
Although there are some terms in the settlement which I feel go
too far and would not accept, I understand Microsoft's desire to
wrap this suit up and move forward. The settlement itself is strong,
requiring, for example, Microsoft to possibly disclose intellectual
property rights. This could arise if a third party wants to exercise
its settlement options. If it is determined that doing so would
infringe on a Microsoft intellectual property right, Microsoft will
provide the third party with a license to the necessary intellectual
property. The settlement actually supercedes Microsoft's property
rights. Further, compliance with these terms will enforced in part
by a Technical Committee to be created under the settlement.
This agreement gives Microsoft the freedom to focus exclusively
on what they do best, that is, developing new and advanced
technology that consumers like myself have come to expect, whether
it is at home or work.
Sincerely,
Nick Rosenstein, Ph.D.
President
IPN Interactive Payer Network
Please visit us on www.InterPayNet.com
Interactive Payer Network
Landerbrook Corporate Center
5910 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 110
Cleveland, Ohio 44124
voice 440-720-0700, x201
fax 440-720-0702
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00011541
From: Robert Gibson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:55pm
Subject: Get it done!
Justice delayed is justice denied. Microsoft was denied
presenting any evidence before the court ..that's not justice.
Having the judge making public comment while the case is in
progress. That's not justice. Asking competitors to set penalties.
That's not justice. How pathetic does it get?
Even more pathetic as this bunch of has been envious companies
hate Microsoft so much that in a bid to line their own pockets with
their ill gotten gain they will even go so far as to deny American
school kids computers.
It's not about justice is it. It's just plain envy and hate of a
rich but generous man who gave $17B to charity last year. YOU HAVE
NO SHAME!!
Thank you
Robert John Gibson
Senior Systems Eng, B Eng, NNCDE
Network Engineering
Ph 919 992 5072 ESN 352
MTC-00011542
From: Randy Pelham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have followed with interest the antitrust case against
Microsoft. It disturbs me that the government will spend millions of
dollars of taxpayer money on witch hunts. It is obvious that the
government has selectively chosen Microsoft in this matter. Why not
AOL? If the government is going to take action against those
companies which strive to improve their product for the good of the
public, then our whole economy will eventually stagnate from the
lack of creativity. I back any settlement that will stop the waste
of taxpayer money.
MTC-00011543
From: Elizabeth M(00E9)nard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:57pm
Subject: Settlement
I honestly believe that this case has dangerously harmed the US
and the Canadian economy. If the whole word has a cumputer on their
desk today it is because of company like Microsoft who did deliver
afordable software available everywhere. It is not a Microsoft
illegal issue but a maket demand issue! Their revenue is customer
driven! We like it we buy it ! No one is twisting the customer's
arms.
Today I can send this message instantly because of Microsoft and
their developers all over the world. This case is all about politics
not about consumers. Now days everyone can install what ever
software they want! It doesn't always have to be a Microsoft product
but if it is easeer to use and cheeper to buy than let it be a
Microsoft product. They deserve it! because they always had the
product we needed!
Elizabeth Minard
Canadian citizen
a 20 year old Microsoft Product user
MTC-00011544
From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE just settle this case. It has gone on far too long, it is
out of date at this point.
S. Quinn
MTC-00011545
From: Mike Fowler
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I continue to watch with much curiosity the on-going dilemma
between various states and the DOJ regarding the above class action
suit and as always, try to follow the money. Of all the class-action
suits that I have been aware of or had the unfortunate experience to
have been part and party, the only individuals or business who
profited were attorneys and accounting groups. It appears to me that
because there have been no other companies who have been able to
develop programs that are both functionally and price competitive
with Microsoft's programs, it appears that these remaining states
are simply holding out for money to fill their coffers.
[[Page 25469]]
Our organization is a medium size business with approximately
200 personnel and we have used and relied on Microsoft products for
more that 5 years and have been extremely satisfied with their
products and services.
It would be much simpler if these states would just cut to the
chase and tell Microsoft how much money they want so that this suit
can finally end once and for all. No individual I have spoken to who
uses Microsoft products has any idea that they will receive or have
ever received any compensation from a class-action suit.
Individually one person (if they can verify they purchased a piece
of software) will receive only a small return of monies from a suit
of this sort. On the other hand, the attorneys are likely to receive
millions, tens of millions or more from a settlement. For the most
part, the only people interested in this suit (especially since 9/
11/2001) are those states who stand to gain millions for their state
coffers....I think they care little or nothing about individuals or
businesses.
Settle this stupid suit and let's get on with more important
matters (such as the obvious fraud associated with the fall of
Enron--some blame needs to be laid on investment companies who
follow and report on these types of companies and continue to
encourage investors to buy their stocks, Arthur Anderson, and those
executives who led people astray while dumping their own stock).
It's time to more on.
Michael B. Fowler
V.P. Finance/Administration
Rogers & Brown Custom Brokers, Inc.
P.O. Box 20160
Charleston, SC 29413
MTC-00011546
From: Andrew Coupe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:57pm
Subject: Letter of comment on the Microsoft Litigation
Andrew Coupe
14 Middlebridge Court
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the
Microsoft settlement issue. I am a Microsoft supporter and have been
active in informing my state government of Maryland on my views. I
feel this issue has drawn on long enough, and I was relieved to hear
that Maryland had settled and dropped its lawsuit against Microsoft.
I am extremely anxious to see this dispute resolved at the federal
level.
Microsoft is a company that has done much to impact our society.
Because of Microsoft, we reap the benefits of computer technology in
our daily lives. This settlement will end three years of litigation
and will allow Microsoft to continue focusing its energy on
innovative design. This settlement was reached after extensive
negotiations and is complete. Microsoft will now agree to share
sensitive information about Windows with its competitors.
I find it particularly disturbing that the remaining states in
the lawsuit are all homes to Microsoft competitors. It is my
understanding, that the Tunney act was designed to protect consumers
not corporations. It appears that Oracle, Novell, Sun Microsystems,
and others are using state legislators to further their own agenda
under the guise of ``protecting consumers''. It is ironic that state
legislators are pursuing Microsoft for overcharging consumers while
Sun and IBM continue to sell competing products at significantly
higher prices.
During these difficult economic times, it would serve in the
best public interest to stop wasting precious resources on
litigation against Microsoft and allow this company to get back to
business. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Andrew Coupe
MTC-00011547
From: Genie Morrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Folks At DOJ:
This has gone on long enough.
While I appreciate your efforts to reach a fair and equitable
settlement for all American businesses and Americans, it is time for
action. Settle, and let's move on.
Where is the outcry from DOJ when... Only 2 meat packers control
nearly all of the food supply, here in the US? Only 3 major
confectioners; Hershey, Mars, and Nestle control most chocolate/
candy? Only 1 satellite company will control the entire US satellite
TV market? Only 2 (major) food service distributors for restaurants
in the US? Only 3 companies control air conditioning/furnace (HVAC)
manufacturing? The list goes on and on...
We Americans will not need a DOJ if Alan Greenspan lowers
interest rates again. Heck, the big companies will borrow money (so
they can buyout small, competing companies), Americans will lose
their jobs, and soon--a handful of companies will control EVERYTHING
in America.
Nice picture? Get this settlement over with. You have many more
important issues to tackle. Software giants of today, can fall
tomorrow. Who thought IBM would be brought to their knees--by
Microsoft?
Kindest Regards,
Genie Morrison
MTC-00011548
From: Richard Spooner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DoJ
I support the proposed antitrust settlement which reasonably
punishes the wrong-doing found by the court and allows all concerned
to move on. Users worldwide need the common standard Microsoft
supplies. Please don't handicap the US economy by delaying
settlement now.
Yours
Richard Spooner
MTC-00011549
From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I support Microsoft in its attempt to innovate. Microsoft has
probably done more to move this country forward than any other
company. There attempt to be a leader has caused other companies to
take notice and because they haven't been as successful they cry
foul. Microsoft Corp. should be an example for other companies. No
matter what Microsoft does to settle this lawsuit people are not
happy. These people, especially the schools, are in it for the
money. I would suggest finding some real criminals to bring to
justice and leave Microsoft alone and free to innovate.
MTC-00011550
From: kamran mortezavi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to close this case and move on to more important
issues that are effecting our lives to day. My vote is for the
settlement.
Kamran Mortezavi
(301) 340-2669 (home)
(301) 762-9126 (home Fax)
MTC-00011551
From: Tom Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To all whom these presents shall come, Greetings.
(Is that how it's usually put??)
Having reviewed the documents related to this case, please let
me offer the opinion that they are a good start, yet insufficient to
prevent monopoly abuse on the part of Microsoft (as they have
demonstrated in the past; cf. the December 17, 1997 contempt
motion). Further, let me suggest an additional remedy that should
lessen the probability of such occurrences while remaining
consistent with Microsoft's own claims of its innovative prowess. As
you will recall, in the early phases of these trials, Microsoft
chose to paint the picture that the case was about freedom to
innovate. I believe my (admittedly partial) solution leaves them
free to innovate and reap the benefits of any true innovation.
The remainder of this email speaks to Paragraphs 36 and 37 of
the original complaint, which are:
36. Neither the antitrust laws nor this action seeks to inhibit
Microsoft from competing on the merits by innovation or otherwise.
Rather, the Complaint challenges only Microsoft's concerted attempts
to maintain its monopoly in operating systems and to achieve
dominance in other markets, not by innovation and other competition
on the merits, but by tie-ins, exclusive dealing contracts, and
other anticompetitive agreements that deter innovation, exclude
competition, and rob customers of their right to choose among
competing alternatives.
37. Microsoft's conduct adversely affects innovation, including
by:
a. impairing the incentive of Microsoft's competitors and
potential competitors to
[[Page 25470]]
undertake research and development, because
they know that Microsoft will be able to limit the rewards from any
resulting innovation;
b. impairing the ability of Microsoft's competitors and
potential competitors to obtain financing for research and
development;
c. inhibiting Microsoft's competitors that nevertheless succeed
in developing promising innovations from effectively marketing their
improved products to customers;
d. reducing the incentive and ability of OEMs to innovate and
differentiate their products in ways that would appeal to customers;
and
e. reducing competition and the spur to innovation by Microsoft
and others that only competition can provide.
Microsoft has in the past established a particular modus
operandi, to wit:
1) A potential competitor will develop an innovative product
with the potential of material impact in the middleware arena.
2) Microsoft will purchase, license, steal and reimplement the
concepts of the product, or simply infringe patents to incorporate
the competitive technology into it's own product offerings. In the
case of simply stealing someone's idea (e.g. Web browsers),
Microsoft's operating system dominance then nearly guarantees the
overtaking and ownership of the new technology's market. (If you
would have evidence of this kind of behavior, especially my
infringement accusation, let me suggest that some of the lawsuits
brought against Microsoft whose records have been sealed be
unsealed. Those cases that Microsoft wants left sealed the most
will, I am sure, provide the richest examples.)
3) The threat being neutralized, Microsoft will cease any
meaningful ``innovation'' and begin developing minor feature
enhancements designed to drive revenue to Microsoft rather than
provide value to consumers. (Witness the release of Word 6 on the
Macintosh, which actually ran slower than its predecessor. This flaw
was only corrected after massive publicity began to reflect poorly
on Microsoft.)
However, the current settlement, especially the paragraphs:
``Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering
into (a) any bona fide joint venture or (b) any joint development or
joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM for a
new product, technology or service, or any material value-add to an
existing product, technology or service, in which both Microsoft and
the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute significant developer or
other resources, that prohibits such entity from competing with the
object of the joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable
period of time.
This Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft
licenses intellectual property in from a third party; does not
address the behavior I have described, where Microsoft essentially
stifles innovation while claiming to be innovative.
Let me propose the following additions to the settlement:
Microsoft be prohibited from acquiring (or making a future
agreement to acquire) any company or company's product, or
purchasing anything more than non-exclusive redistribution rights to
another company's individual product, for seven years. Also, they
would be prohibited from making investments greater than, say, $20M
in any company.
Microsoft could not possess copies of the source code for any
software product not developed in-house, even under license. The
actions of any company in which it made investments could not be
restricted by Microsoft in any way, shape, or form. Microsoft be
prohibited from implementing technologies developed at any other
company unless they adequately license someone else's patent. (I'd
suggest a guideline of ``adequacy'' could be established, perhaps 3%
of the product's gross revenues.) Possibly companies or individuals
could also register their own innovations with an office of the
Technical Committee (*not* located in Redmond). (Given that the
Technical Committee will be on Microsoft's campus we have to assume
that Microsoft would be able to read any database kept on its
premises.) While this appears to duplicate the efforts of the US
Patent and Trademark Office, the Technical Committee's innovation
database could probably be updated more easily and would allow for
the registration of product concepts, again the chief example being
web browsers (registration would require the presence of a working
prototype, of course). This does not constrain Microsoft from
developing its own patents or ideas, indeed, it should encourage
such ``innovation''.
Further, if Microsoft is found guilty in (or settles) a suit of
patent or innovation infringement filed (not necessarily resolved)
during the during the period of enforcement (listed as 5 years in
the Settlement document, though I would suggest increasing this term
to 7 years), punitive penalties should be 30-fold the original
judgement or settlement (not the mere 3 times that I believe current
law allows).
I believe that these additions to the settlements will encourage
true innovative behavior on Microsoft's part to the benefit of the
consumer. I recognize that these provisos flirt with restraint of
trade. However, Microsoft has flouted the law without adequate
recompense to date, and I believe an extraordinary remedy is in
order.
Best Regards,
Thomas Berry
Galileo Systems, LLC
408-296-5223
CC:microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw, ROBERT.RIGSBY@...
MTC-00011552
From: Dixie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Truly this has gone far enough. With all that is happening in
the world I would think it is time to move on and let Microsoft run
their business and end this long drawn out lawsuit.. The settlement
terms Microsoft offered are in my opinion more than fair, in the
interest of ``right'' end this nonsense now.
Sincerely,
Mary D. Pintler
Dixie Pintler
[email protected]
MTC-00011553
From: Ron Samford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Let's get this settled and move on; it's time to free Microsoft
from the burdens of this litigation and get the DOJ focused on more
pressing needs. Microsoft has recognized it's not infallible in this
issue. All objectives have been met in large measure on both sides.
Settle it now, please.
MTC-00011554
From: Bakstran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern
This email is to let you know my feelings on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I am a Massachusetts resident and do not agree
with our Attorney General who has decided not to abide by the
proposed settlement. I believe the settlement is fair and is
certainly in the best interest of the consumers of the US. Microsoft
has provided so much to us in the area of technology improvements
and price/performance of their software. I look forward to their
innovations in 2002 and beyond.
Sincerely
Annette Bakstran
20 Baker Road
Berlin, MA 01503
MTC-00011555
From: George Huey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is becoming increasingly clear that the case against
Microsoft is not only against Microsoft but against the American
people as well. The hate spewed forth by AOL, Sun and Oracle is
disgusting and I find it hard to believe that our justice system
would side with such companies. Our economy is in the toilet and it
needs everything it can get it to rebound (like getting off of
Microsoft's back). It is an interesting note that our economy didn?t
start to decline until the government attacked Microsoft. If DOJ is
really interested in helping the American people, it will stop
listening to the Microsoft bashers (AOL, Sun and Oracle) and think
about what is good for the American people. If anything, I would
like an inquiry into how the government justice system can take
sides with companies such as AOL, Sun and Oracle when it is clear
that none of these companies give a flying goose about the welfare
of the American people. Anyway, this madness needs to stop. If AOL,
Sun and Oracle want to compete, tell them to lower their prices and
become competitive with Microsoft, not have the government destroy
Microsoft so that they won?t have to provide better products. Also,
I resent the fact that the government and Microsoft's competitors
think that the American public is so stupid that they can?t make a
choice on what software they want to run on their systems. If I want
to run AOL
[[Page 25471]]
or use an Oracle database, I will do so. Microsoft has
never forced me to use their products. I am very happy with
Microsoft and their struggle to make the computer user experience
easy. I believe that Microsoft is working for the people not against
the people like its competitors. Any politician that fights against
Microsoft will lose my vote. It is time for the American justice
system to get out of bed with AOL, Sun, and Oracle and think about
what is good for the people not what is good for Microsoft's
competitors. Please stop trying to destroy Microsoft. It is not good
for the economy or the American people.
Yours truly,
An American citizen,
George Huey
MTC-00011557
From: Chris (038) Marcia Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:01am
Subject: MS
Whatever decision is made, I believe the ease of use by the
general public is the overwhelming issue. Standardization is very
important. I really don't care what the standardization is except
that is should in the user realm, not some companies agenda. I do
believe that the market place will take care of 99% of all issues. I
dread the government's involvement. Sometimes elected officials get
involved when they shouldn't and sometimes they don't get involved
when they should. I think the economy of the US is much better
served by Congress when they listen to the public as opposed to a
few companies which failed in their technology and or marketing.
Chris Wood
1155 Victoria Falls Dr
Redmond, OR 97756
541-504-9358
MTC-00011558
From: ML Kuzma
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ML Kuzma
77 Worth Ave
Hamden, CT 06518
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Marie Kuzma
MTC-00011560
From: Mathur,Ashok N.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Its about time we settled Microsoft case. With the current
economy any dragging of the case can only hurt the cause of
recovery.
MTC-00011561
From: Barline, John
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am an attorney, Republican, active citizen, consumer of
computer hardware and software and daily computer user. I am writing
to advise that it is my belief that the Microsoft litigation needs
to be settled and not further litigated. The very software that I am
using is a result of the good work that Microsoft has done and is
doing. I feel that to litigate this matter further is a giant waste
of the taxpayers' money, the government's time, and would
unnecessarily prolong this process. Let's get on with doing things
that benefit the country, instead of penalizing a company that has
only benefited the US in the world and all of us citizens.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
John D. Barline
Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC
1301 A Street, Suite 900
Tacoma, WA 98402-4200
Phone (253) 593-5620
Fax (253) 593-5625
email: [email protected]
MTC-00011562
From: Bob Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
Time to stop this madness. These attacks on our American
Companies are the main reason our economy and stock markets are in
the dumps. Time to get the lawyers out of Washington's Federal
Justice Department and get back to business.
Bob Walters
Placerville, CA
MTC-00011563
From: Academy of Music Northwest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Too many lawyers are trying to build a career out of this issue.
The terms are fair, reasonable, logical, and good for everyone,
except lawyers and malcontents. Let's get on with this settlement
NOW.
Thank you,
Dee Wells,
VP Finance and Admin.
Academy of Music Northwest
425 778 7711
MTC-00011564
From: Jimm Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With all due respect, I have never seen a sorrier excuse as the
one where thousands of mostly lower income children loose the
opportunity to learn from new resources valued in the billion(s)
because of the way antitrust laws are being construed. Why not just
require Microsft to fund, at whatever amount prescribed, the
school's choice of computer systems, Microsoft based or otherwise?
MTC-00011565
From: Rod Trent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:06pm
Subject: Anti-Trust case. . .
The length of time it is taking to reach a settlement in the
Microsoft case is horrible. The government has already created a
very good settlement, and the states not accepting this settlement
are keeping the country and economy from recovering from 9/11. Let
Microsoft get back to work and keep making products that provide
jobs and economic and market value.
This case is no longer for the benefit of the consumer.
Consumers aren't even on some of these panels that the government
has allowed. Bringing folks from AOL, Sun, and NetScape into the mix
only shows that this case has nothing to do with the consumer. AOL,
Sun, and NetScape, specifically need to get to work and just create
competing products. Microsoft has never stopped these companies from
bearing down and just trying to create better products. They have
stopped themselves, and in doing so, have only stopped to whine and
cry. You can't compete, if you don't even try to compete. Its like
me crying to my mom, asking her to tear up my friend's picture,
because he's a better artist than I am. And, when I'm older and find
I still have no artistic talent, do I ask the government to burn
every piece of artwork in the world because it makes me
uncomfortable?
AOL for one, should be under the gun for anti-trust issues. I
speak to consumers every day, and the majority of them can't
understand how a company like AOL has not entered into any kind of
litigation, but Microsoft is forced to be beat on by companies who
give as much money to the government as Enron.
If it weren't for Microsoft, these companies would have no one
to compete with. From this you can see that Microsoft and its
products actually spur competition. They raise the bar, forcing
companies to either compete or succumb. What US loyalist can't see
that as the American way?
Rod Trent
Microsoft.MVP.SMS
[[Page 25472]]
MTC-00011566
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE APPROVE THIS SETTLEMENT. GET THIS THING BEHIND ALL OF US.
Luana Miller
San Rafael, Ca.
MTC-00011567
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please do not allow bickering between businesses to deprive the
schools and children to benefit from advancing and keeping up with
technology that they cannot afford by themselves.
I believe schools and our well-informed future citizens will be
able to make intelligent and informed choices in the future.
LT
MTC-00011568
From: Jody Varner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
My name is Jody Anne Varner and I serve as the Executive
Director of Hope Unlimited International and like most
professionals, use MicroSoft products daily.
I do not agree with the Proposed Final Judgment that you are
considering. I implore you to cause MicroSoft to have to play by the
same rules all others do. Please do not let this PFJ stand.
Sincerely,
Jody Anne Varner
Executive Director
Hope Unlimited International
415-438-3350
MTC-00011569
From: Stan Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department Members:
I write to you to encourage you to accept the settlement
proposed by Microsoft. I believe it is fair and putting this affair
behind us will be an important step towards getting our high-tech
economy back in productive mode. This will help us here in
California as it will help the rest of the nation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Stan & Susan Young
19903 Summit Drive
Topanga, CA 90290
MTC-00011570
From: Jack Lawyer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft support
I fully support the Microsoft's position in the anti-trust case.
The settlement agreed to with the Federal Government is just and
fair. I believe that the states that did not settle are profoundly
influenced by their corporate constituencies who are motivated by
competition. They are only out to feather their own nests at
Microsoft's expense. John W. Lawyer
MTC-00011571
From: Johanna Seth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I have read the recommended documents. I am in favor of
settlement under the present terms.
Johanna Seth
14860-16 Summerlin Woods
Fort Myers, FL 33919
941-481-3751
MTC-00011572
From: Jack Richins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:11pm
Subject: Comments on the proposed United States v. Microsoft
Settlement
After reading the proposed settlement, I am strongly in favor of
this settlement. It is fair, rights the wrongs done, and prevents
future occurrences. This settlement will help end this case, which
has gone on long enough to detriment of the consumers. Quickly
accepting this settlement will benefit consumers with a more open
market with greater innovation and greater competition. And that is
the purpose of this entire case, is it not?
Sincerely,
Jack Richins
MTC-00011573
From: George Howell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a farce. A company has been found to
be a monopoly, and one that abuses the situation. The proposed
settlement will strengthen the monopoly, and allow further abuse of
the power. In addition, the marginal cost to Microsoft to implement
this remedy are essentially zero.
A far more rational plan is that suggested by Bob Young of Red
Hat Inc, wherein Microsoft pays for hardware, and the software is
provided by a free software vendor.
A third potential, and one that I advocate is to modify the
current proposal to have some real teeth. First, Microsoft should
have to provide cash and/or staff members in dollar amounts annually
to equal the retail price of the software it is donating. Many
studies indicate that post sale support is the largest factor in
computer purchases. Saddling schools with machines and no support is
worse than doing nothing. Money better spent on books, etc. will be
directed to computer support. Let Microsoft pay for on site
personnel. This makes the computers of more use to the schools, and
also imposes true monetary penalties for their actions.
Second, this must not be a one-time deal. The computers and
software must be replaced on a three year schedule (common in all
industries with computer equipment) and the support staff must be on
site for the entire three year period.
Finally, to avoid this being simply a three year slap on the
wrist, the upgrade cycle should be financed by Microsoft
indefinitely. When they cease to support this program, they should
be required to develop a new remedy. In other words, this only buys
them time. In addition, the amount should be adjusted by the rate of
inflation as determined by the GAO or some other independent body.
This proposal will not eliminate the monopoly; it is unlikely
that anything will. On the other hand, it will force Microsoft to
pay for the pleasure. Also, some might view this as too harsh, being
indefinite in nature. The money illegally earned by Microsoft will
compound year after year unless there is a monetary penalty
sufficient to eliminate their advantage. This plan modification that
I suggest would make sure that Microsoft would not be able to take
advantage of investments made with illegally gotten wealth. The only
other possibility to prevent this is to impose massive cash payments
to the respective governments and other plaintiffs.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
George Howell
[email protected]
MTC-00011574
From: Casey Clan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This misguided action by our government(s) should have ended
long ago. As a litigation support specialist for Price Waterhouse, I
participated in the last High Tech witch hunt by the DOJ against IBM
(with Memorex' help). What a joke! We don't need protection from
Microsoft.we need protection from our government! Let us decide
ourselves whether to buy Microsoft's products, and then buy stock in
the company if we think their profits are excessive. Why don't you
guys go find some real criminals.
Please settle this monkey business as soon as possible.
Kevin Casey
MTC-00011575
From: Ron and Jan Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft case should be settled. What better way to
have something positive comes out of this. Just think of how many
children's lives could be changed if they had access to a computer.
One billion in funding, software and training would make a huge
difference in our classroom for the better. Just my opinion, for
what it is worth. I am a grandmother with several grandchildren in
grade school. Sure would like that benefit for them.
Sincerely,
Jan Miller
MTC-00011576
From: David Sagherian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
[[Page 25473]]
As a consumer, I am appalled at the manner with which nine
states are stretching this incredibly convoluted issue further. I am
a California resident and consider the state's actions
counterproductive and not representative of my intents and wishes
and I speak for many who share the same thoughts.
There has been enormous damage to the consumer out of these
lawsuits. Much more than the alleged harm they are trying presumably
to correct? Time to call it a lawsuit and MOVE ON!!!!!!
David Sagherian
Glendale California
MTC-00011577
From: Pierce, Jeff
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the court:
I strongly agree that the Government should accept the proposed
settlement terms and get the Microsoft case resolved without further
litigation. The lawsuit is clearly Microsoft's competitors' attempt
to injure, harm, distract, and frivolously litigate a successful,
tough American company.
Please remember the following facts as you consider settlement:
1) The initial lawsuits were filed after lobbying by Microsoft
competitors-- not by citizen groups. Read Lawyer Reeback's history.
2) Microsoft is a monopoly in their own product and can modify
it as they like. They can expand and add functionality to their
products just like their vociferous competitors do--Oracle and SUN
being two of the primary agitators.
3) There is plenty of choice for all technolgoies. Within the
information industry, I count just four competitor's revenues (IBM/
SUN/ORACLE/APPLE) at well over $100 Billion dollars in just these
four named companies. They should develop and market technologies
that compete on their merits. I don't see Microsoft getting the
state of Washington to sue IBM for their monopoly on IBM
mainframes--AND PREDATORY MAINFRAME SOFTWARE PRICING PRACTICES THAT
ARE WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE INDUSTRY. Why not? People look at
``disruptive technology choices'' that accomplish business goals by
choosing from a myriad of other products that accomplish their
goals. .
NO CONSUMER HARM
The biggest legal issue was supposed to be consumer harm. In all
the documents I read on this court case, I have yet to see
quantified or estimated damages to consumers. In fact, maybe
consumers should PAY MICROSOFT for adding valuable features at no
charge into their products-- features they could otherwise pay for
to ``competitors''.
The average selling price of PC hardware combined with Microsoft
software has fallen probably 66% since I have professionally sold
computers and networks for a living. Again, a CONSUMER BENEFIT due
to Microsoft.
Final Note: I understand some company called Apple Computer
makes an electronic box without Microsoft software; such box is able
to mimic functionality provided by Microsoft powered hardware.
Consumers can order this box today, immediately, on the Internet and
never have to buy Microsoft. Easy to choose alternatives, isn't it?
STATES GOVERNMENTS ARE LACKEYS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
I am extremely disturbed by states suing on behalf of business
competitors. As pointed out, there is no consumer harm--just
business competition through the natural competitiveness of the
technology industry. The states that choose not to settle should
have some fairly well defined precedents set by the current
agreement proposal between the Govt/Settling States and Microsoft.
Precedents that will stop their continued foolishness in this
lawsuit.
Regards,
Jeff Pierce
16 Jesse Dr
Mercerville, NJ 08619
609-584-8621
[email protected]
CC:'jeff(a)pierce.net'
MTC-00011578
From: Hal Kenyon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I own Kenyon Drafting & Design and use many Microsoft products.
Microsoft is a great company!
I want the settlement to benefit Microsoft as much as possible.
The more we penalize Microsoft, the more we have to pay for their
products & services (which are excellent quality).
Sincerely,
Hal Kenyon
www.kenyondrafting.com
MTC-00011579
From: jane mcguigan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I cannot understand the reason these states are objecting to the
settlement. The taspayers of the US have wasted enough money with
the Microsoft case. I am more that satisfied with the results of the
settlement. Let Microsoft get back to their business. I am a user of
MS products and a shareholder in the company They have complied over
and above.
MTC-00011580
From: Tuttle,Dino M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:15pm
Subject: Settlement
A quien corresponda:
I think the US government should get it's hands off Microsoft
and give them an apology. Why punish a company for succeeding. If we
didn't like the product, we'd buy Apple.
Dino Tuttle
Box 3169
Alamo, TX 78516
MTC-00011581
From: Peggy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would personally like to comment upon the Microsoft antitrust
settlement. It certainly ``could'' discourage people from striking
out on their own and striving to be the best. I personally object to
the whole antitrust case with Microsoft. As Americans we should be
able to grow our business as much as possible. I am a small company,
but certainly feel that ``if'' I were to become a LARGE company I
would feel threatened by government because of this particular
antitrus case going on today. I think Americans should be free, with
no interference from government--unless fraud is going on - and I do
not think it is with Microsoft. They have great products, and
because they have developed something of far superior quality to
other companies, they are being stiffled and punished. I truly do
believe it is a crime--and the results of some poor losers' attempts
to discredit someone that did better in their plans, production and
products, than they.
Thank you,
Peggy Page, 13525 N. Lon Adams Road, Marana, Arizona 85653--520-
682-4326
MTC-00011582
From: George Burch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft--a consumer viewpoint
This is just another typical pissing away of the public's money.
Microsoft has done nothing wrong. It only happens that the
competition is not willing to dig into their pockets to play and the
DOJ and the Congress saw it as an opportunity to look like they give
a shit about the public. Fact: If I owned the concession on air, to
get it you would have to pay. It is called capitalism. Press on with
your inane exercise. It is why you guys work for the government. You
would not last a second in the real world.
George
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011583
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
We need to thank Bill Gates and Microsoft for what they have
done for this country and technology instead of suing him. Where
would we be without Microsoft and computers?
We live in America to have the freedom to innovate and make
discoveries that will benefit Americans. One of our freedoms is
capitalism. When a man and his company is successful, do we then sue
him and try to take his rights away as an American. We need to end
these lawsuits now and give Microsoft the freedom it deserves to
invent new products that help us all in business and in schools.
Joanne Leonard
Hollywood, Florida
MTC-00011584
From: laura
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
[[Page 25473]]
The consumers have not been hurt by Microsoft. The nine states
pursuing the suit against Microsoft are representing competitors-not
consumers. The settlement with the government should have brought
this matter to close.
Paul Stout
MTC-00011585
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:20pm
Subject: Priorities
I urge that the government close its case against Microsoft and
concentrate on matters of more importance to the American people
than persecuting a company which is more responsible that most
entities in this country (private or governmental) for the 90's
booming economy.
Joan Hamaker
MTC-00011586
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With the uncertainty of the economy, the Microsoft suit demands
closure so we can all get back to normal. Please move this case to a
conclusion.
Robert Hines, San Diego, CA
MTC-00011587
From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I almost don't care how you settle this Microsoft case, but
please settle it.
Seriously, this has been going on for far too long.
Stephen Quinn, Test Mgr
``The more I want to get something done, the less I call it
work.''--R. Bach http://www.ag.wastholm.net/author/Ashleigh--
Brilliant> .NET Enterprise Server, SQL Business Intelligence
Office Phone: 425.703.5351, Cell Phone: 425.829.3727
MTC-00011588
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was very disappointed to learn that US District Judge J.
Fredrick Motz rejected a settlement that would have resolved the
class-action lawsuits filed against Microsoft.
Enough is enough! First we had an incompetent and obviously
biased Judge Penfield and now this. We are still reeling from the
attack of 9/11. Our country is at war, our economy in a shambles,
thousands of citizens are out of work and thousands more will
shortly join them. I thought Microsoft made a great offer that would
have benefited the company, the country and the underprivileged but
apparently there are those who are hell bent on destroying a great
company, major employer and generous benefactor.
Could it be that the goal is to transfer more of our business to
Asia or is it to pander to the incompetent and jealous competition
here at home? In the interest of all concerned, it is time to settle
this case for once and for all.
Then we can direct all of our legal resources and skills towards
salvaging the savings, pensions and jobs of the unfortunate citizens
ravaged in the horrific, real and major scandal now at hand:-Enron.
Very truly yours,
Maureen J. Killeen
MTC-00011589
From: Dave Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Please, let's settle the Microsoft case, and let them get back
to business.
Dave Garvie
MTC-00011590
From: mookie1173
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:25pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
To Whom It May Concern:
I feel the lawsuit against Microsoft should not be allowed to
continue. I feel the current set of measures agreed to by Microsoft
and the Department of Justice are sufficient and to continue
litigation will unnecessarily prolong this country's current
economic problems. I feel the final outcome will be the same anyway
since the current set of sanctions are fair and reasonable. I feel
that this litigation has undermined this country's faith in the
future of the entire technology sector. It has done much more harm
than any transgressions ever made by Microsoft. I am glad that this
happened, but I think it's now time to move on. I hope we will soon
be able to put this situation behind us. I'm sure there are many
other more constructive ways to use the court's time.
Sincerely,
Mark Hamblin
MTC-00011591
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please settle the case with Microsoft quickly and in a fair
manner so that Microsoft and our economy are not hurt further.
MTC-00011592
From: Ben Trevathan Allied Worldwide
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As a Microsoft shareholder (as well as an owner of shares in
most of Microsoft's major competitors), I would like to exercise my
right to comment on the proposed settlement. Other than my ownership
of shares and my use of Microsoft products, I derive no benefit,
directly or indirectly, from Microsoft and am not employed in the
technology industry.
The prior administration commenced an action against Microsoft
that was not sought by the marketplace. The destructive impact of
this course of action has been aptly chronicled by the evaporation
of tens of billions of shareholder wealth, not just at Microsoft,
but among its competitors as well. Microsoft enjoys its current
market position not because of any nefarious plot, but directly as
the result of providing a valuable product that the consumer has
chosen freely and often. As was the case with IBM in the 1970's, no
company--especially one that is competing in an arena in which
innovation today can render last year's necessity obsolete--can
enjoy a monopoly without the intervention of government. It is cruel
irony that it is the intervention of government which now punishes a
company victorious in the free and unfettered technology marketplace
in order to enrich competitors whose success came not from that
marketplace but from generously opening their wallets to Washington
influence.
The current administration has the opportunity to return the
nation - at least in this one instance--to a path in which freedom
and innovation are rewarded and success or failure are determined by
the people who participate in the market, not by the purchased power
of government for sale to the highest bidder. As has always been the
case, the path of freedom requires courage in the face of determined
opposition. For the several years that this action has been pursued,
we have as a nation followed a dark and dangerous course designed to
overturn a verdict rendered collectively by the people. It is a
dynamic verdict that is subject to change at any moment. But it is
the people, voting daily in a free marketplace, and not the
government who must either affirm or cast aside that verdict.
History has demonstrated repeatedly and unanimously that when
governments intercede to force their will upon the marketplace, the
price borne by the people is significant. The Department of Justice
should support the settlement of its action against Microsoft. It is
the first step back onto the correct path-- a path determined anew
everyday by the people, not set by the government.
Ben Trevathan
Business Executive
MBA University of Chicago
MTC-00011593
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I am sending this note to express my concern for the proposed
antitrust settlement with 9 states and Microsoft, The provisions of
the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved,
and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals ruling. The
settlement is good for consumer and the American economy. We need to
move beyond this litigation. As a country we have more important
thing to deal with like national security and America economy.
I urge you to settle this case with Microsoft which is the best
interest for this country at this time.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
Stephanie Davis
MTC-00011594
From: Clyde Tatman
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25475]]
Date: 1/15/02 2:25pm
Subject: mocrosoft settlement
This has gone on long enough. I believe MS is being sued because
it is large and successful. Since the Fed. has initiated a suit the
states should keep their nose or collective noses out of it.
MTC-00011595
From: Minder, Stephen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems that the USA needs to get the Microsoft case behind us.
Please urge the parties to agree to a settlement that allows
competition, but also allows one of America's most important
strategic companies to continue to operate.
Stephen W. Minder
MTC-00011596
From: Bob Sanborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to get this litigation behind us. I believe the
proposed settlement is fair and just. As a citizen I would like to
get this behind us for the good of the country. Please settle this
as soon as possible and avoid any further litigation.
Robert W. Sanborn
5406 W. University Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75209
214-352-9630
MTC-00011597
From: H. G. Bare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please be advised that I strenuously object to any and all
further litigation against Micro$oft in regard to delaying the
proposed settlement. I especially object on the grounds that, as a
Massachusetts resident, I am now forced to see my state tax dollars
spent on useless pursuit of political gain for the incumbent
Attorney General, who is only interested in getting free TV air
time, not my best interests.
Sincerely,
Heather G. Bare
265 Braley Hill Road
Rochester, MA 02770-1907
[email protected]
MTC-00011598
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It is time to settle the Microsoft lawsuit, and stop litigating!
The litigation is hurting the economy. The only beneficiaries of the
litigation are the trial lawyers.
Sincerely,
Barton L. Hartzell
836 2nd. Ave., #302
Kirkland, WA. 98033
MTC-00011599
From: RICK MARCINIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case even if you increase the fine 100
million. So there are 9 states against the solution. That's pretty
good out of 50 states. If that was the vote in Congress or the
Senate it would be a no brainer. PLEASE, let's put this behind us.
Thank You
Rick Marciniak, 1065 Gator Trail, WPB, FL. 33409
MTC-00011600
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I strongly believe that the Microsoft case should be soon
settled as proposed and all additional litigation discontinued.
Sincerely,
Carlos A. Baanante
MTC-00011601
From: Cleon Seguin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:31pm
Subject: litagation
The case against Microsoft is not about anti trust it is about
the freedom of interprize to get ahead in a competive maner. The
states are only after a free ride in the developement of new
produces. Why should Microsoft have to give up there trade secrets
anymore than General Motors. As for a monoply how about the car
companys You have to buy Ford parts to fix a ford car as well as the
rest of the car companys. How about Boeing , they have 100% monoply
on airplanes. Microsoft has given a huge amount of settlement offer.
Tell the states to go to hell and develope there own products.
Cleon a Seguin
7814 s,112th, st. Seattle wa.
206 772 6798
[email protected]
MTC-00011602
From: jason dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern.
As a software engineer by trade, I wish to comment on the
proposed Microsoft settlement.
I would add that I'm not an employee or contracted to Microsoft
and do not have shares in the company.
Whilst Microsoft may be guilty of bad practices, I feel that the
settlement is fair. The company should not be broken up, nor should
it be made to give up to another company the Windows or Office
product. America is built on a freedom to make money by giving
something the end-users want, if the end-user wants Microsoft then
let them choose. Oracle complains but it's software is only used on
high-end machines, how does it know what the end-user wants.
Please let the Microsoft settlement stand. So everyone can move
forward, developing in a situation where you don't know if the
company who's products you are using will be around in 6 months or
they are changing to something different is very disheartening.
Regards,
Jason Dennis
MTC-00011603
From: Sean Callahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe it is now time to settle the Microsoft anti-trust
lawsuit, as well as, all the civil lawsuits. The company has been
found guilt. Now please pick a punishment and let's move on. By
dragging on the settlement talks, the only winners are the lawyers,
not the consumers, which is suppose to be the intended winners.
Please just pick a punishment and stop all the legal wrangling.
Thank you,
Sean Callahan
Gilbert, AZ
MTC-00011604
From: BOB KADECHKA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
PLEASE DROP THIS MATTER!
MTC-00011605
From: Paul Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1055 Doylestown Pike?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = ``urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office'' />
Quakertown, PA 18951 January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I have used Microsoft products for 12 years. Microsoft software
is one of the few things in America that works well. It makes my job
easier. All the Microsoft products work well together as it should
be. As a concerned citizen of this great nation, I am writing to
voice my opinions on the settlement, which has been reached in the
three-year antitrust case against Microsoft. It pleases me to know
that a settlement has been reached by the all of the parties
involved.
Microsoft will not be getting off easy, as others would lead you
to believe. The company has agreed to document and disclose for use
by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows
operating system products. This is a first in an antitrust
settlement
Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes
with Windows or that run on software that competes with Windows.
Please let Microsoft alone. It isn't broke don't try to fix
them. I ask that no more action be taken on the Federal level
against Microsoft. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Johnston
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
Paul A. Johnston
Asplundh
Quality Assurance
Phone: 215-784-1448
Email: [email protected]
[[Page 25476]]
MTC-00011606
From: Roland Pohlman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:33pm
Subject: microsoft needs help
Please leave Microsoft alone to innovate and design new products
for all of us! They have been punished enough. Thank you
MTC-00011607
From: Diane (038) Roland Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft, like Ford, in the early 1900's, has done the world a
favor, by establishing a standard that was very much needed to make
everyone's computer system compatible and therefore useable, at a
time when there was no other compatibility between users. For this,
they should be punished? Only greedy, self seeking men would attempt
to punish progress in the excepted American way of freedom to create
and build in this great country. Long live the Henry Fords and Bill
Gates of this world. HE.OR. Freeman
MTC-00011608
From: Jack Sheehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The purpose of this communication is to express my opinion
regarding the Microsoft settlement.
I believe that the original settlement should have been
sufficient to end this matter and enable all of us to go back to
work without the distraction of additional politically motivated
harassment of the Microsoft Corporation. I am of the opinion that
Microsoft offers for sale products that are generally superior to
any others on the market, and that their prices are reasonable.
Further, there are alternatives to these products and anyone wishing
to avail themselves of other products has the freedom to do so.
Having worked it's way through the minefields created by the Federal
government, Microsoft is now being hounded by State Attorneys
General who no doubt have visions of another ``Tobacco Settlement''
bonanza dancing in their heads, another crusade to fill the State
coffers on the pretext of upholding the rights of the aggrieved
``victims'' of yet another greedy corporation. I ask that you bring
this matter to an expeditions conclusion and save all of us money
that will otherwise be wasted in further litigation. In the end it
is the consumer who pays.
Thank you.
John J. Sheehan
Jack Sheehan
45 Lenor Drive
Harwinton, CT 06791
860-485-1260
[email protected]
MTC-00011609
From: Ellen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer I would like to submit my views to you on the
Microsoft Settlement Case. I think this case has gone on much too
long and it is time to resolve it for the benefit of the American
people. It is time to move on.
I have been a consumer of Microsoft products for over a decade
because I prefer Microsoft products. I am well aware that there are
other software products that I could choose to use instead of
Microsoft, i.e. Linux operating system instead of Windows, but I
prefer Windows. So do many, many other consumers.
This case should be brought to a close as soon as possible.
Ellen Warren
MTC-00011610
From: Randy Hinrichs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:34pm
Subject: Response
The 9 remaining constituents that want to pursue litigation
against Microsoft need to wake up! It is abominable that they would
use the justice system to continue down the path of getting the
government to help them with their competitive strategy. It seems
that they are not going to be satisfied until Microsoft is so
neutered that it is impossible for it to continue doing business in
a way that helps the american economy and provides very decent
business processes.
We begged for someone in the 80s to consolidate the various
datasets and enable/empower the end user to be able to share data,
work interoperably between mainframes, and bring sublime expertise
into software, so we would be much less reliant upon individual
software vendors to come in with their consultants, their MIS
directors, etc. to help us build a simple spreadsheet, or document
management environment. So, Microsoft enters the picture and works
toward consolidating a PC environment for empowering the digital
worker. They did it right. They did it to the glee of the buyer, as
is evidenced by the extreme popularity of the software environment.
The customers simply did not suffer. In fact, being a Microsoft
employee, I've never heard a customer tell me that Microsoft did
them wrong. They only tell me how powerful the software is, and how
it helps them get things done!
As Microsoft expanded its own knowledge of the computing
environment, it looked for improved processes, improved software
archtiectures, improved features. They innovated to the delight of
the consumer, again evidenced by the popularity of the Office
Products, the OS iterations both as clients and servers, then as a
browser, enabling emancipated publishing to the web. Then, the web
enters the picture as a huge opportunity for international global
digital development and Mirosoft simply changes its focus to a new
platform that would help internationalize digital business
processes.
The competitors need to compete on innovative capability, not
further litigation. Get back to work! This is a time we need unity
and parity, not division and imbalance. These 9 constituents need to
work harder to figure out how to build enabling and empowering tools
for the end user, not looking for ways to dig into the Microsoft
coffers that are targeted for improving business, education and
human society. We speak a lingua franca because of Microsoft and
it's what we asked for, we cannot blame Microsoft for enabling us
with its lingua franca and enormous capabilities to perform as
businesses.
Whatever errors in judgement were made by the burgeoning, never
before seen software industry with Microsoft at its helm have been
addressed with a settlement put in place that accomodates for this
evolution. Microsoft is not a malicious company. I moved here myself
from Sun, and I find the company to be mature, principled, focused,
innovative and strongly competitive. They were young kids when they
started (in their 20s), and they emerged quickly, learned hard
lessons, and have been focused on enabling people since then. This
is not your father's Microsoft, it is a new Microsoft, and it is
focused on helping people with software as never before. There are
no barriers to entry. There are no monopolies preventing any company
from entering this industry. In fact, Microsoft with its new .NET
strategy is only going to enable more developers, and more
businesses to succeed worldwide.
Let them alone. Let this settlement get us back to business of
helping customers, and send a strong message back to these 9
consitutents who want to drag this out that you cannot use the
government as a competitive advantage. The government is neutral,
meant to make it fair for all. We cannot allow our democratic system
favor one individual over another.
Randy J. Hinrichs
Group Research Manager
Learning Sciences and Technology
Microsoft Research
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
http://www.learningwebservices.com http://
www.learningwebservices.com/> 1-425-703-5524
MTC-00011611
From: David Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have seen no benefit to the citizens of the United States by
the action taken by the Department of Justice with regards to Civil
Action No. 98-1232 United States vs. Microsoft Corporation. I
believe it has been a complete waist of government resources and has
done harm to the United States economy, the industry as a hole and
the citizens of the United States. Although I personally do not
agree with Department of Justice case in general, I do feel that a
quick settlement would greatly benefit our county. With regards to
the settlement I believe it is extreme, unwarranted and unjustified.
Sincerely
David G. Davis
MTC-00011612
From: Carmor(a)amug.org
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Microsoft Settlement Hearing
To Whom It May Concern:
[[Page 25477]]
I urge the Department of Justice to settle the current
litigation brought brought by nine states in their dispute with
Microsoft. It is in the best interests of all Americans to bring
this divisive litigation to a conclusion. At this point only the
lawyers are profiting.
Sincerely,
Carla Moring
MTC-00011613
From: Michael S. Guillory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For god's sake, settle this thing and let us get on with the
business at hand-reviving the economy and protecting the country and
our position in the world. Also, the individual litigation should be
settled. The school systems would benefit and this would benefit
children and the country.
Michael S. Guillory
MTC-00011614
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Send the lawyers home.
Let Microsoft get on with their business.
Ken Stutzman
MTC-00011615
From: Marj/Ed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement as currently configured is a fair one
and should go forward.
Marjorie A. Lynn
MTC-00011616
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please bring this matter to a conclusion with a speedy
settlement. Thank you.
B.A. Wilcoxson, a microsoft shareholder.
MTC-00011617
From: Jeffries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
After reviewing the settlement as presented, I find the
settlement best for all concerned.
MTC-00011618
From: J. Alley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case ASAP.
Jane D. Alley
19641 20th Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98155
MTC-00011619
From: Kathy Beardsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer of Microsoft products. I believe they are working
in the best interest of the general public, and I believe the
stettlement should stand as is.
Thank you.
Mary Beardsley
CC:Mary K Beardsley
MTC-00011620
From: Marj/Ed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the settlement.
Edwin Lynn
MTC-00011621
From: ARNOLD SEIDON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle now. Microsoft is very generous in their offer. Don't
kill the gouse that we are all dependent on.
Arnold
MTC-00011622
From: monde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The matter needs to be settled in a way that does not end up
being a boon for Microsoft. The school donation looked all warm and
fuzzy but I agree with those who suggest that it is just helping
Microsoft get a big chunk of the educational market. Let us not
forget here that Microsoft broke the law. It just does not seem
right that they should get away with it while people who break other
laws (many of them victimless crimes) end up in prison. -- note: my
@ddress is [email protected] [email protected] is no longer
functional site unseen? see: http://involution.org
MTC-00011623
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MY OPINION NOW, BASED ON THE COURTS ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING LITIGATION AGAINST
MICROSOFT FOR THE BENEFIT OF LESS THAN 20% OF THE STATES. THESE
HOLDOUT STATES ARE IMPEDING THE FINALIZATION OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS,
AND IN DOING SO, IN MY PERSPECTIVE, ARE NOT DOING THE CITIZENS OF
THOSE STATES THE GOOD THEY PERCEIVE. RATHER THEY ARE HOLDING THE DOJ
AND MICROSOFT FOR RANSOM AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 82% OF THE NATION WHO
ACCEPT THE COURTS ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL.
SINCERELY,
DAVID RICHARD
INGALLS
NAPERVILLE,(DUPAGE COUNTY) ILLINOIS
MTC-00011624
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I read this article that gave this email address for opinions on
the Microsoft settlement. First, although irrelevant at this point,
I have to say I think Microsoft has contributed more to the growth
and productivity of this country than anyone else that comes to
mind. With the development of Window concept, it has made the
operation of personal computers available to non-computer people.
Thus it has attributed greatly in making computers user friendly
enough that ordinary people can use them. As a result of this
development, Windows became the software of choice. I remember when
everytime you bought something for the computer you had to see if it
was ``IBM compatable'' or not. No one could focus on software
development because of compatability problems. Windows eliminated
that and almost all software developers worked toward making their
software compatable with Windows. Thus Windows became the universal
software.
I always thought the DOJ's involvement was more for the benefit
of competitors than consumers. In all industries, inferior
competitors complain about being at a disadvantage. In the long run,
the antitrust case against Microsoft, in my opinion, had more
potential to hurt comsumers than to help them. I'm not a computer
geek and I can barely operate one without assistance but windows has
made my life easier when it does come to using a computer.
My mother is a librarian and has been able to obtain free
hardware and software from a Microsoft grant. Many people in Greenup
County Kentucky has benefited by the generosity of Microsoft. Their
grant was for $50,000. Anyone in Greenup County can come to the
library and use the computers and internet.
One lady downloaded a picture of her new grandchild or great
grandchild (I forgot which) from a website in California. They
offered internet training sessions for senior citizens. None of this
possible without Microsoft. I don't see the library getting anything
from Walmart (the world's largest retailer and likely the largest
antitrust violator in this country!!)
Yes I think the settlement with Microsoft is acceptable and the
DOJ should agree to settle the case and move on to a more important
use of our tax dollars. The State AG's that are bucking the
settlement, I think, want cash money for their States so they can
further their individual causes. If you have any questions
concerning my position you can contact me at the email address on
this correspondence.
MTC-00011625
From: Dave Meltzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
just wanted to voice my support for the proposed settlement.
i've been using microsoft software for nearly two decades and have
been amazed at how much value i get for the money. the settlement
terms seem more than fair to consumers and the world economy needs
this settled too.
MTC-00011626
From: Glenn Hyatt
[[Page 25478]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:50pm
Subject: Settle Now!
Leave Microsoft alone! Be done with it now! Don't force
Microsoft to pack up and leave this land of harassment ( once free
). Get the government out of business and our lives!
Glenn Hyatt
MTC-00011627
From: O'Neal, Miles (038) Lola
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time to stop further action against Microsoft. The
settlement should be accepted. I am old enough to remember computers
before Microsoft integrated programs to work together smoothly,
trying to put together a working home system. . let alone a working
office system. . was a nightmare. In my book they are heroes not
villains. Leave them alone.
Lola O'Neal
MTC-00011628
From: Sheila Fass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I firmly believe that the start of the downturn in the economy
started with the persecution of Microsoft. The only way out of this
slump is to settle this mess once and for all. Just think of the
progress in communication we owe to Microsoft. With their
innovations we have become one world in communication. It would have
taken decades to reach this level without Microsoft. They deserve
some leeway in marketing methods to have a continued impact on
international distribution of knowledge.
sincerely: Sheila Fass [email protected]
MTC-00011629
From: charles jenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:52pm
Dear Sirs, The nine states that have not agreed to the Microsoft
settlement are not acting n the best interests of consumers, of
which my wife and I are two, not in the best interests of the
economy as a whole. I urge you not to heed their cry but to proceed
to settlement. I wish that I had had the opportunity to testify on
behalf of Microsoft during the trial.
Sincerely yours,
Charles R. Jenner
MTC-00011630
From: Ian Lance Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm writing to say that I think that the proposed settlement of
the antitrust suit against Microsoft is weak and ineffective. While
it addresses part of Microsoft's past behaviour, it does not address
their past conduct with regard to squashing innovation in the
computer industry. Where the settlement is appropriate, as in the
disclosure of protocols, it appears to have been carefully crafted
to avoid requiring disclosure to free software programmers, although
free software such as Samba is the most common case requiring
protocol information, and is the most significant competitor to
Microsoft today.
Please reconsider the proposed settlement, and search for a
settlement which will properly address the profoundly negative
impact Microsoft has had on the U.S. computer industry.
Respectfully,
Ian Taylor
103 Winfield St.
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 550-9004
[email protected]
MTC-00011631
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
The appropriate time and diligence has been dedicated to the
Microsoft settlement and the recent settlement is both fair and
tough to Microsoft. I encourage the Department of Justice to
complete this settlement, as it stands, and pave the way for the US
consumer, Microsoft, other software/hardware companies and American
business to move forward. We certainly know that moving forward is
good for our country, particularly in these difficult times.
Sincerely,
Sandra O. Myskowski
Sandra O. Myskowski, CEO
Sandbill Enterprises, Inc.
1016 Baker Road
Sinking Spring, Pa 19608
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 610-698-7056
MTC-00011632
From: AUSSIEALLEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THANK YOU, JEFF S. ALLEN
MTC-00011633
From: Lucien Bomar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
lb StationeryDear Sirs:
I strongly urge you to complete the current Microsoft settlement
under the currently proposed terms. It is long past time to conclude
this matter.
I believe the remedy is just and substantial. It is important
that we maintain a viable Microsoft. In my career (30 years), I have
twice make major purges of software form my companies. The first was
largely getting rid of 5.25 floppy based software and the second
getting rid of software on 3.5 floppies. Each time I wondered what
happened to the companies that had developed the programs that I had
invested in that subsequently disappeared. I later found that most
had made their Millions, cashed out their stock and moved to
mountain villas like Aspen. Microsoft on the other hand has been a
constant and has continued to develop new and innovative products
while maintaining backward compatibility with their early products.
Their products are inexpensive and easy for my employees to use,
understand and get support for during the software lifetime. For a
business owner it is important to know that the company I invest in
(by purchasing software) will be here in the future and will supply
support for the products I invest in. Microsoft has proven itself up
to the task. Microsoft continues to supply the best (by far)
customer and Partner support on the planet. In addition it has
created a Worldwide support group of non-Microsoft specialist that
support it's products.
I will continue to support Microsoft because Microsoft supports
me.
Thank you,
Lucien C. Bomar
Senior Member, IEEE
[email protected]
MTC-00011634
From: Richard Klinkner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:57pm
Please proceed with the settlement with Microsoft ; it is fair
to all parties.
Richard L. Klinkner, A Consumer
MTC-00011635
From: Davar Shokoh-Alai
To: Microsoft ATR,Susan Alai
Date: 1/15/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How I wish the government would not try to force competitive
advantages for one company over another. Accept this settlement but
make it more fair for Microsoft and lower the requirements placed on
a pro-consumer company that has opened doors for our country in
unimaginable ways. When IBM tried to stranglehold us to their
mainframes and Sunw to their boxes, and Oracle to their painful
overcharged and painful to deploy database offerings, it was only
Microsoft that dared to take on these big guys and offer more
powerful and easier to use systems for customers.
Being in the technical management side of the house for 7+ years
now and with 17+ years of business management experience, I know how
hard it is to discern truth from error when it comes to technical
offerings and respective sales pitches; however, it has been so
clear that Microsoft is always looking for a way to make it easier
to add technological advantages to businesses at a much lower cost.
Meanwhile, IBM, Sunw and Oracle have continued to fight them at
every front in order to keep the prices at unreachable places and
charge us their outrageous consulting fees to deploy their
``solutions''.
I can not believe how much Microsoft has agreed to give into the
government just to settle this and allow our economy to move forward
once again! What is even more unbelievable is that 9 of the state
attorneys are trying to get more for the competitive companies in
their states. Maybe it is considered politics as usual, but it needs
to stop now. Settle this case but make it a lot better for Microsoft
since they have gone so far in their offer to settle this case.
disclosure: I have sold IBM, Microsoft and Oracle solutions and
speak from across the board experience.
[[Page 25479]]
MTC-00011636
From: Konrad M.Kempfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
This is to support the settlement in the Microsoft case. The
case should not continue to be litigated. It is not in the public
interest to continue litigation. The settlement proposed is fair.
We do not need our own justice department and states to weaken
one of America's best companies while the Europeans and the World
Trade Organization are out to harm our industries. We need to
protect our industries.
Respectfully
Konrad M.Kempfe
MTC-00011637
From: Kathy Gooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge Kollar-Kotally
I am writing to you today to express my intense disapproval of
the Proposed Final Judgment announced by the Justice Department
regarding the Microsoft case. Having followed the review by the
Federal Courts during the past three years of the Microsoft
antitrust case, in which they proclaimed that Microsoft repeatedly
and forcefully violated U.S. antitrust laws and was liable for its
illegal conduct, I am very much alarmed by the PFJ. I am also aware
that recently a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that
Microsoft had clearly violated antitrust laws and that any
government settlement with Microsoft must have three key elements:
a) Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly, b). Deny to Microsoft the
fruits of its past violations, and c). Prevent any future
anticompetitive activity.
So, my question is, why has the Justice Department cut a back-
room deal with Microsoft that fails to meet any of these three
standards? I hope that as you review my response to the Justice
Department's deal, and others like it, you will recognize the severe
mistake that we would be making as a country to ignore what is right
here. Please help protect public trust in our Government, the
interests of the non-Microsoft developers? community, and the rights
of all software users by ensuring that Microsoft is held accountable
for their long-standing antitrust abuses. Thank you for taking the
time to review my comments.
Sincerely,
Kathy Gooley
MTC-00011638
From: Hackley E. Woodford, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In view of our economy and post 911, the war, massive
unemployment and recession, how could anyone feel honestly justified
in holding up social and economic progress by voting against the
Microsoft Settlement? Is it competition, jealousy, negativism
favoritism, conspiracy, dishonesty, ignorance or What?
Microsoft is an American company. They are big and make money
because they earn it.
Microsoft is not the Enemy, they are the Benefactors.
Agree to the Microsoft Settlement and watch the economy improve.
CC:Hackley E. Woodford
MTC-00011639
From: Charles Porter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My Dear Justice:
It is very clear that no settlement with Microsoft will stop
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has a consistent
strategy of entering markets that are not being closely watched, and
of violating laws in subtle enough ways, that the motivation to stop
the behavior does not become sufficient to be effective until
Microsoft has effectively destroyed all competition in the target
market, and erected prohibitive barriers to entry, making any
constraint on the company's behavior irrelevant.
Microsoft is currently engaged in such a campaign to dominate
the Internet Service Provider ( ISP) Market. In addition to
legitimate strategies such as buying shares in existing ISP;s like
ATT@home, and developing their own ISP business through the MSN.com
business, they are engaged in predatory practices which create
effective barriers to large numbers of consumers from doing business
with any ISP other then MSN.
Microsoft has an agreement to assume all residential Digital
Subscriber Line (DSL) accounts from QWest in thirteen western
states. Prior to this agreement, selecting an ISP in these states
was very much like selecting a long distance carrier. QWest owned
the line from the house to the central office, an receives a fee for
running DSL over that line. The consumer could then freely choose
from at least dozens of ISP's to carry the traffic from there to the
internet. One option for an ISP was QWest's own ISP service
Qwest.net. If a consumer is unhappy with an ISP, Qwest would switch
them to another within a day or two and for a small fee. Under the
agreement with QWest, all of QWest.net customers are transferred to
Microsoft. If a customer failed to opt-out before the deadline of
November 30, 2001, they would be transferred to MSN. Once the
account is transferred to MSN, the consumers relationship with QWest
is severed. The customer of record for the DSL service is shifted
from Qwest to MSN. This means that Qwest has no control over the
customers line, and is unable to shift the consumer to an alternate
ISP. Additionally MSN refuses to permit connection to a coveting
ISP. The only available option is to ``Unprovision the Line'', which
means to disconnect the DSL service altogether, not just from the
telephone office to the internet, but from the consumers home to the
central office. To make it additionally difficult, the
``unprovisioning'' process takes 30 days. ( Changing from another
ISP to MSN takes only 30 seconds via a Qwest Web page.) Allowing
user to opt-out of MSN only by unprovisioning the line is analogous
to Sprint saying that the only way to change long-distance carriers
is to disconnect your telephone, and then pay to have it
reconnected, for the normal new service charges at the time. In
fact, unprovisioning the DSL service often does include
disconnecting the telephone service itself, though Qwest will claim
that this is accidental.
Incidentally, at the time of making the new connection it is
difficult to find any options for an ISP other than MSN.
Qwest has taken the additional step of raising the price of a
new DSL connection to $I00, creating an additional barrier to
changing ISP.
Since Microsoft is the majority ISP, most consumers are barred
from switching away from Microsoft.
I raise this issue, not because I think the Justice department
should be stopping this practice, but because it is strong evidence
that Microsoft has not intention of changing its behavior.
Information technology changes extremely quickly. By the time
Justice is able to stop any particular anti-competitive practice,
that practice is irrelevant. The only solution is to remove the
power which Microsoft cannot resist abusing. As serious an issue as
removing competition in the ISP market is, it is relatively small
issue compared to Microsoft's stated objective: control of the
internet. Under this plan, for every commercial transaction over the
internet, Microsoft will be paid several times:
--once by the consumer for access to the internet, via MSN ISP
service
--once by the customer for use of the windows operating system
(Microsoft is moving from selling windows to selling subscriptions
to windows)
--once by the vendor from whom the consumer purchases for validation
of the users identification via Microsoft's passport service,.
--several times by the vendor for several licenses of the Windows
server software and web-site software.
--once by the vendor for use of Microsoft financial services
currently in development, for the actual transfer of funds
--and more ominously, many more times for selling the information
gathered about the consumer while collecting all of the other
transactions.
This is just about a simple purchase. I have left out all of the
use of Microsoft products in fulfillment of the order and in
marketing the product.
Attached is some background material on the QWest/Microsoft case
from the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
I am available to provide additional information, should you
wish it.
Thanks for your attention.
Charles Porter
Appendixes:
My complaint to the Washington state attorney general:
Web Site Consumer Informal Complaint Form: Thank you for using
the WUTC Web Site. Use this form to submit complaints to the
Consumer Affairs Section
Statewide Toll Free: 1-800-562-6150
[[Page 25480]]
Local: 360-664-1120
Hearing Impaired--TTY: 360-586-8203
Your Name(required): Charles Porter
Your Address: Street address: 810--30th Ave
(We need your City: Seattle, address in State: WA order to Zip:
98122 process your comment)
Your County: USA
Phone Numbers: Home: 206-568-3404
Day/Work: 425-455-7601 x231
Your E-Mail address: charles, [email protected]
Date: 11/30/2001
Utility or Transportation Company Information
Company Name: Qwest, Microsoft
Company street Address: City______ State______ Zip______
Your Account Number: 206-568-3404 If your know your Account
Number, be sure to include it. About Your Complaint Have you tried
to resolve the dispute with your utility or transportation company?
(*)Yes
( ) No
If ``yes,'' what was the result? no change
Please explain your complaint in detail:
Qwest has been providing my home with internet service via
digital subscriber line (DSL). This service only connects my house
physically to QWest's offices. In addition to DSL provider, it is
necessary to have an internet service provider (ISP), that connects
my line from Qwest to the internet. QWest has been providing my ISP
service as well. Qwest informed me that I must change my internet
provider (ISP) to Microsoft' MSN service by November 31, 2001, or I
would be swithed automaticaly. Immediately after performing the
switching operation via the Qwest web site on Sunday Oct 22, I
learned that the MSN service had several ``features'' and
requirements that are different from those provided by Qwest. I
decided that I should investigate other ISP's. To faciliate this
more considered change, within 30 minutes of initiating the
changeover to MSN, I tried to cancel the change both by contacting
Qwest and MSN via email and several telepone numbers, including
sales, and customer support at both organizations. I attempted both
to restore my Qwest service and to change directly to another ISP.
The upshot was that I could not cancel the changeover, and that I
could only cancel the entire service with Microsoft, but canceling
the service would take 30 to 60 days. Additionaly the act of
canceling, disconnects the DSL service provided by Qwest. Restoring
the DSL service would then take anywhere from i0 days to 6 months,
depending on demand in my neighborhood.
It is a far cry from equal access, when you consider that if my
ISP were anyone other than Microsoft, changing ISP is as sidle as
calling either Qwest or the new ISP and asking for a switch, much
like the process of changing long distance companies.
Continuing this analogy, their policy of handling Microsoft is
customers, would be like saying that to change long distance
carriers, I must wait 2 months, have all of my phone service
diconnected, and then wait I0 days to 6 months for a reconnect.
What do you think the company should do to resolve your
complaint? Qwest should switch my ISP service to any provider I
choose, without delay, handling the requestr withe same even-
handedness that is required for customers long-distance I carrier
choice.
From the Seattle Times: A growing number of consumers and
Internet service providers co, lain that MSN Microsoft's Web
company--is throwing up roadblocks for former Qwest high-speed
Internet customers who want to quit MSN.
``It makes me feel like they're saying `We're going to teach you
a lesson' for wanting to quit them,'' said Larry Lomax of Des
Moines, a former Qwest digital-subscriber-line (DSL) customer who
switched to MSN and then decided he wanted to move to another
provider.
Lomax said that MSN continually told him that he had been
disconnected from its service, while Qwest insisted that according
to its records, he still had a live DSL connection with MSN. The
impasse lasted for about two months and ended earlier this month,
when Lomax became so frustrated that he decided to give up on DSL
altogether. When Qwest and MSN announced they were teaming up last
spring, the two giants promoted their new alliance as a boon to
500,000 Internet subscribers in 14 states, mostly in the West, who
would benefit from Qwest technology and MSN's content.
Roughly two out of five of those subscribers were DSL customers
who had chosen Qwest as their Internet service provider; the rest
were customers who used dial-up modems. Under the partnership
arrangement, all former Qwest customers would automatically become
MSN customers unless they opted out. Washington state DSL customers
say the deadline to switch has shifted from a date last month to
Jan. 21.
Some critics maintain that MSN is engaging in monopolistic
practices that deserve attention, such as forcing customers who want
to switch away from MSN to go without DSL service and charging them
more if they try to switch. They further contend that Qwest, which
originally promised to treat all DSL providers equally to help
spread the technology, now is conspiring with MSN to hoard such
prized customers. Qwest insists it is not playing favorites.
MSN likewise denies the allegations, but a spokeswoman
acknowledged it recently had learned of problems relating to
cancellation orders with DSL customers. She added that MSN was
working to correct them. It is difficult to gauge the scope of the
problem because neither Qwest nor MSN will disclose how many DSL
customers have chosen to switch to another provider rather than
accept MSN.
The companies also won't say how many customers quit MSN after
initially agreeing to the transfer. Even more difficult to figure
out is the number of consumers who have given up trying to quit MSN
because they found the obstacles too daunting.
``Everyone's just up in arms over this thing,'' said Darwin
Hill, owner of Worldlink, a Shoreline-based Internet service
provider who contends that MSN's conduct has cost him customers.
``Consumers are amazed by how they can't get anything done,'' he
said. Hill is among the providers and consumers in Washington and
other states who are particularly peeved at what they claim are
routine waits of two weeks--during which no DSL service is
available--to change Internet service providers (ISPs) .
In addition, they are concerned about reconnection charges of
$69 that will rise to $99 on Jan. 5.
By contrast, before MSN's arrival, Qwest charged DSL customers
$30 to change providers. Also, the switch routinely got done
overnight, or with minimal service interruption, according to
several independent providers.
Charles Porter, a Seattle DSL user who thought better of his
decision to accept MSN, filed a complaint with the state attorney
general. He stated that when he tried to change service providers,
both MSN and Qwest said switching could take from i0 days to six
months. ``It is a far cry from equal access, when you consider that
if my ISP were anyone other than Microsoft, changing ISPs is as
sidle as . . . changing long-distance companies,'' he wrote in his
complaint. In an interview, Porter said, ``Microsoft is up to their
old games,'' referring to monopolistic practices.
Jared Reimer, an executive with The River, a Tucson-based
provider that offers DSL service in Arizona and Western Washington,
alleged that the system is ``rigged up so that it's almost
impossible for the customer to switch.''
He said that under the new arrangement, Qwest has made MSN the
``customer of record'' on the DSL portion of a customer's phone
line, meaning the consumer no longer has the ability to switch
providers at will. ``They must get (MSN's) permission to do it,'' he
said. Lisa Gurry, an MSN product manager, acknowledged that under
the deal with Qwest, MSN owns ``the interaction with the (DSL)
customer.'' She said the company ``recently learned about issues on
the order-cancellation process, primarily with DSL (customers). DSL
is certainly more complicated for every provider, not just MSN.''
She said that the majority of DSL customers wishing to cancel
MSN were not having problems and that MSN and Qwest were working
``to improve customer experience.'' Meantime, Gary Gardner,
executive director with the Washington State Association of Internet
Service Providers, a trade group for the state's independent
providers, is asking the state Attorney General's Office to get
involved.
A spokesman for the office said it was aware of the complaints
and was monitoring the situation. Peter Lewis can be reached at 206-
464-2217 or [email protected]. Copyright (C) 2002 The Seattle
Times Company Qwest-to-MSN switch frustrates many Internet customers
find it difficult to get problems resolved Friday, November 23, 2001
By JANE HADLEY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CONSUMER AFFAIRS REPORTER
The process of switching hundreds of thousands of Qwest Internet
customers to Microsoft's MSN Internet service is experiencing some
glitches, both companies admit. Qwest and Microsoft Corp. in April
announced a five-year partnership under
[[Page 25481]]
which Qwest will close down
its Internet provider service and encourage its 500,000 customers to
move to MSN. Qwest will be the DSL provider for MSN customers.
The two companies are encouraging customers to switch before
Nov. 30, and Qwest says its Internet provider service will close
down early next year. Customers have the option of switching to an
Internet provider other than MSN, but Qwest, under its agreement,
has pledged to promote MSN above other providers.
But in a confusing twist, Qwest is also quietly offering
customers the option of staying with Qwest under a program called
StarterPak, which is aimed at small businesses, but is similar in
most respects to what it had been offering to its residential
customers.
The MSN transition problem has been worst for customers who had
been using Qwest's DSL service, which provides fast connections to
the Internet, said Lisa Gurry, an MSN product manager. Liz Conner, a
Federal Way resident, said she waited 11 weeks to get DSL equipment
that she was promised she would get within two weeks. ``I've done
everything I can think of and contacted everyone I can find,''
Conner said. ``I tried calling Microsoft, even. They can't even tell
me what department to contact or who to contact. So the bottom line
is that the customer is stymied; they're left holding the bag with
nowhere to go to get this problem resolved. The folks at MSN aren't
solving it, and they're blaming Qwest. Qwest isn't solving it.
They're blaming MSN. ``
How common is this problem? Unfortunately, the state Utilities
and Transportation Commission does not keep track of the number of
consumers who complain to them about Qwest/MSN problems.
Instead, the commission keeps track of a far smaller number:
customers who don't get satisfaction after they call a special Qwest
number that the commission gives to people filing complaints.
That amounts to about five people in the past two months,
commission spokesman Tim Sweeney said. The Attorney General's Office
has received a similar number of complaints about the Qwest/MSN
transition in the last few weeks, spokesman Chris Jarvis said. But
Conner said one Qwest customer service representative told her that
Qwest's and MSN's computers weren't speaking to one another, and
that the mess was affecting about 20,000 Qwest DSL customers.
Lisa Gurry, an MSN product manager, said the two companies are
working on synchronizing their databases. ``Both MSN and Qwest are
two big companies,'' Qwest spokesman Michael Dunne said. ``Making
this partnership work, we're experiencing some difficulties in
migrating customers from Qwest.net to MSN.''
But he added, ``We're working tirelessly with MSN'' to solve the
problems. Grace Dapar, another MSN spokeswoman, said MSN has set up
a task force specifically to deal with delays in setting up
accounts.
Delay is only one complaint. Others include confusion and
difficulty making the switch, difficulty reaching company
representatives who are knowledgeable and follow through on their
promises, and disappointment with services MSN is providing.
Conner, who said she's spent countless hours on the telephone,
said Qwest representatives repeatedly made promises that weren't
kept and she believed she was being lied to. ``My impression is the
folks at Qwest are so desperate to tell you something, and the
people above aren't telling them anything.''
Aleta Hoyt, a Seattle real estate agent who has Qwest DSL and
Internet service, says she has found the process of
``transitioning,'' as Qwest and MSN call it, to be confusing and
difficult. Hoyt received a letter in the mail telling her she needed
to transition and could qualify for a prize if she did so before
next Friday.
Hoyt believed she had no choice but to switch to MSN. She typed
her name into the online form to ``transition,'' but the form told
her she was ``not authorized'' to transition. She called Qwest and
was told to reset her password and try again. Same result. She was
then given a phone number to call MSN's technical support. When she
called there, she was told that wasn't technical support and to call
a different number. She called the second number, where she was told
to call the first number she had called. She experienced problems
when the form asked for her ``billing phone number'' yet required
three extra digits added to the phone number. Also, she lost her
Internet access totally when she followed the Qwest representative's
suggestion to reset her password. A different Qwest tech-support
person straightened that out.
But now Hoyt was confused because several of the Qwest
representatives told her she could stay with Qwest after all, using
the $21.95-a-month StarterPak program. She's now mulling her
options.
Meanwhile, in online forums, some customers are complaining that
MSN emphasizes Hotmail, its Web-based e-mail service, which makes it
impossible to subscribe to traditional Usenet news groups and means
that e-mail is stored on MSN servers instead of downloaded to the
user's computer.
But MSN's Gurry notes that Web-based e-mail provides the
advantage of being accessible from any computer anywhere in the
world. Also, MSN has its own news groups, which are ``richer'' than
the Usenet news groups, she said. Gurry initially agreed that MSN
was not supporting traditional Post Office Protocol e-mail accounts,
but later corrected that and said that although MSN is pushing the
Web-based e-mail, users can have access to the traditional POP type
of e-mail, in which messages are downloaded to the user's computer.
One customer complained, however, that Microsoft appeared to be
doing no spam filtering on its POP accounts. ``The services we offer
today are based on what the majority of customers have told us they
do want,'' Gurry said. ``Inevitably, we'll hear feedback requesting
additional features and functionality. We continue to listen to that
feedback and evaluate the prospects of including those features in
future MSN releases,'' she said.
P-I reporter Jane Hadley can be reached at 206-448-8362 or
[email protected]
MTC-00011640
From: Ralph Whiteside
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It time for the government to settle the Microsoft case and get
on to important issues. Such as, Enron and professional baseball
restraint of trade.
MTC-00011641
From: Rhoda Elenbaas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern: I have watched over the past several
years while massive amounts of time and money have been spent on
this issue. The proposed settlement pending before the court is just
and equitable. It contains a component that will greatly benefit
disadvantaged portions of the community and schools. Some might
argue that there is hidden motivation and benefit to Microsoft. I
would argue that the benefit to the students, families and
communities is much greater and should be the primary area of
concern because if it does not come from this source--it will not
happen in the forseeable future.
Let's be done with this issue once and for all. I am sick of
hearing and reading about it and believe that to continue this
matter for another moment is a gross waste of time, energy and
dollars. There is a real & great evil at work in our society that is
more worthy of our focus. Microsoft has taken it's lashes. Let's
move on. A concerned taxpayer and voting American.
Rhoda Elenbaas
MTC-00011642
From: Metters, Bobbie J
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 3:01pm
Subject: My views
I think Microsoft is more than fair and I don't think Bill Gates
should be told by we the people or the Government how to run a
company.Albeit It was before my time when Standard Oil Co. was
forced to break up due to the same type of situation. . . . ok that
was oil this is disc but you get the idea. . . . I think Nintendo
has far higher prices for it's stuff and then when you finally get
one play-station they come up with a new one with higher prices yet
on their cartridges and no-one says a thing about that . . . and
that's just my view. . . . Bobbie Metters
MTC-00011643
From: Paul Goethe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
As a small business owner I wish to state that the proposed
settlement is more than fair to small business owners such as our
company. Thirty years ago Microsoft developed an operating system
that enabled our business to flourish. Our business being Electrical
design Software. In the intervening years we have kept up with all
up-grades for
[[Page 25482]]
what I call Very Low charges while all along receiving
1st class back-up and support from Microsoft personnel. To people
like us Microsoft has been a God-Send. We feel that the proposed
settlement is extremely harsh but we recommend it stands as is.
Best Regards:
Paul K. Goethe President
Optimized Program Inc.
Cleveland , Ohio 44136
MTC-00011644
From: Carl J. Clement
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I approve of the Microsoft settlement. The entire matter was
caused by about 4 potential (failed)competitors who tried to use the
Federal government to do their competing!
Carl J. Clement
MTC-00011645
From: Giacomo Zardetto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Once and for all, SETTLE the Microsoft Lawsuit. The World
Economy is at constant WAR. Life in itself is a war of economics.
WHY DO YOU WANT TO DEFEAT ONE OF YOUR OWN? ``Divide and conquer'',
was the motto, of an old communist; STALIN Please settle this once
and for all.
Your country and millions of beneficiaries of today's technology
will thank you for it.
Sincerely,
GIACOMO ZARDETTO
[email protected]
MTC-00011646
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While Microsoft probably overplayed its hand enough to get its
would be competitors upset to the point of initiating this action,
they have certainly done more good for the American consumer than
harm. They, by innovation and standardization, have probably done
immeasurable good in improving the productivity of our entire work
force. I would have preferred that the Department of Justice had not
gotten involved in the first place; however, they have and it sounds
like the settlement worked out is fair. With respect to the 9 hold-
out states that want even more, I am not sure what their game is. Do
they want money as an alternative source of revenue in lieu of
raising taxes because they think they can get away with it? Do they
want glory and recognition? Do they want to punish Microsoft because
they are jealous? Or do they really believe they and the consumers
they represent have really been dealt an injustice? It certainly
makes no sense to me.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
John Gridley
MTC-00011647
From: Gordon R. Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Having owned and used multiple computers and many different
software programs and their upgrades during the last thirty years, I
can state from experience that the alternative to constant
frustration from software ``clichis''--is to use an integrated set
of software products from a financially strong company which can be
depended on to stay in business and continually upgrade its
products. I look to Microsoft as being that company. I have always
felt that their price of software was relatively insignificant and
one of the greatest bargains in history in terms of what it can
accomplish. The future of the nation is considerably dependent on
having a strong, innovative, software company such as Microsoft with
the ability to guarantee continued continuity and upgrading of an
overall package of software products for personal computers. The
courts should uphold the settlement agreements presently acceptable
to the United States Department of Justice and all states should
join in the acceptance for the good of the nation and computer
users.
Gordon R. Martin
Gleneden Beach, Oregon
MTC-00011648
From: Kevin DeSchene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:59pm
Subject: Class Action Suite
Hello, The proposed remedy for the class action suites are
unacceptable (i.e some odd billions of dollars going to poor
schools). Was this an attempt to reward MS for their shoddy business
ethics or what? The customer base is the plaintiff here, not the
schools. And since when has the accused been allowed to negotiate
their punishment. Should we start asking murderers what their
punishment should be, (not to be confused with plea bargains). U.S.
antitrust law implies that the violator must be deprived of it's
ill-gotten gains, as well as be fully sheared in terms of
perpetrating the bad deed again in the future.
A proper set of solution:
1. Require MS to accurately publish the APIs Windows, IE, and
Office programs,,, etc. . ., and offer same as storable (not
automated one-time only) downloads for the public to view and study;
2. Prohibit Microsoft from entering any web services area,
including .NET entirely, for 10 years. Since MS is leveraging its
existing wares as a jump off to .MAKE-US-RENT-SOFTWARE-FOREVER
(a.k.a. .NET), they must be denied this further attempt to profit
from the initial ill-gotten gain;
3. No, don't break up Microsoft, but simply require that MS
Office applications and all associated source code be declared
freeware. This would effectively deny MS the fruits of its initial
ill-gotten gains.
4. Fine the firm (MS) an amount equal to the dividends it hasn't
paid shareholders as yet; this will prevent MS from using its cash
reserves to buy its way around the above restrictions by simply
inventing a new sandbox and forcing us all to play in it all over
again (this is what they are already trying to do with .NET of
course).
5. Their software should be supported and their licensing
controlled more: i.e if they quit supporting ANY software, then that
said software should become public domain. This would control
MicroSoft from forcing upgrades. Microsoft should be required to re-
organize their licensing program to allow for corporations/
individuals to skip upgrades without punishment.
6. Exclusionary OEM agreements should be considered violation of
law and punished accordingly. OEM pricing should be published for
public viewing.
7. Political monetary influence should be monitored more
closely. Even though it can't be proven, MS has influenced the
political regimes of this county (I'm embarrassed by what our
political system has become), and policed properly.
8. Program integration should be controlled more readily.
Customers should be given the option to buy Windows without any
additional programs installed. Windows ONLY, no IE, no Media Player,
no Notepad, no nothing, just the OS and any OS related utilities
(i.e Defrag, Scandisk, etc. . .)
9. All court/litigation costs should be paid by MicroSoft for
ALL litigation imposed in the past 7 years.
10. Additionally, Microsoft should be given a proposed
punishment imposed in the case of further future violations of the
law.
As Well,
A. Litigation for technology needs to be revamped in this
country. Our laws don't move at the speed of technology. By the time
the court hearings are completed, the issues are irrelevant.
B. Appeals need to be limited more. There is no other reason for
the number of appeals MicroSoft litigation has produced. These
appeals just costs the Taxpayers more in taxes.
Thank You!
Kevin DeSchene
MTC-00011649
From: Ann Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Should be Settled
I personally use Microsoft products and think they have givenso
much to people that the case should be settled.
Sincerely,
Anmn Jackson
MTC-00011650
From: Tomal, Bob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The legal INDUSTRY is out of control. Their greed and never
ending pursuit for prolonging the billing for outrageous hourly and
contingency fees is unconscionable. Now they are again on the quest
to extort and redistribute cash into their already bloated bank
accounts. The sick thing with that sleazy mob is that they are now
stealing from the American children who would benefit from this
settlement. I know that you're all in the same fraternity and will
just consider this a crank e-mail, but then again, you might have
decency to agree that your industry has crossed over the line.
CC:'MSFIN(a)Microsoft.com'
[[Page 25483]]
MTC-00011651
From: Victor Pearson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The more than $1 billion in funding, software, services and
training, etc. should be accepted or the whole thing should be
dropped and not brought up any more. Microsoft has been more than
fair during this whole process and is still trying to create new and
innovated products even when the competition is trying to win via
the court of law and not with great software products. If the
software competition to Microsoft would put as much effort into
their software as they do into trying to bring Microsoft down in a
court of law, maybe they would have software that consumers want
more than they would want software from Microsoft.
Thank you,
Victor E. Pearson
MTC-00011652
From: hd74amf2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments on the Microsoft settlement.
It is time to get this over, and to move on. I disagree that
Microsoft should have ever been sued. Look at the damage that
resulted in their stock price, which effected millions of people. It
is a sad day when competitors of Microsoft waste their time getting
the government to file lawsuits, instead of investing in research to
compete. The government should have never brought the suit. Anyone
that understands technology would know that just because Explorer is
on the desktop, doesn't mean that you can't load Netscape.
I don't like or use Explorer, but I do not believe in government
interference with private industry. Nothing will be gained by this
lawsuit. The consumer will end up paying more. It is a very alarming
trend in government.
I do not like most Microsoft products, but until some one comes
up with something better, they are here to stay. The emphasis should
be getting on with business, and competing with the rest of the
world. If Microsoft will agree to the settlement, get it over. I do
not think they should settle, they should fight it and win, but if
they want to settle, it is time to move on.
Richard
MTC-00011653
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:06pm
Subject: (no subject)
i think it is time to settle the microsoft case now. there are
only nine(9) states do not agree. we cant accept the case because of
9 states. we should not. Judges should have to think more. they
claims it hurts consumers because microsoft is monoply . BALONEY. WE
as the consumers know for sure that we did not feel any harm of it.
STOP CRYING LIKE BABIES. THAT IS WHAT I FEEL.
THANK YOU.
Larry Schoenberg
MTC-00011654
From: Flora Donivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find it interesting that our state so small in population and
political clout could be a leader in withdrawing from the Microsoft
litigation. New Mexico acknowledged some time ago that a continuance
of said litigation was not helpful to the people of New Mexico
considering the cost to taxpayers as well as the cost to the country
as a whole.
Let us put all this behind us Massachusetts and Utah and others.
Perhaps the present recession could be helped to an end by a more
friendly business environment.
Flora L. Donivan
A proud New Mexican
MTC-00011655
From: Anne Proffitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this suit! Microsoft has done more than they
should have had to in order to satisfy the DOJ, the court and the
competitors. The other nine states also need to look at the larger
picture and co-operate by joining the settlement agreement.
Anne Proffitt
1900 Shore Avenue
Freeland, WA 98249
[email protected]
MTC-00011656
From: Prem Dhawan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:07pm
Subject: Settlement
We should settle microsoft lawsuit and move on. It serves no
purpose to drag it on.
Best Regards,
PremDhawan
@WWFinancialResolutions.com
Advisor to Banks & Businesses
Bankruptcy Trustee
Tele: (707) 747-6000
You are invited to visit our website at:
http://www.wwfinancialresolutions.com>
MTC-00011657
From: Gilbert Claborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Please allow the settlement of the Microsoft case so that the
company can get on with its development and production of products
at reasonable costs, without inflated costs arising from protracted
litigation, and so that my tax money can stop being spent
frivolously and without end of needless extensions of the DOJ
litigation.
Gilbert L. Claborn
268 Stonebridge Road
Birmingham, AL 35210
(205) 956-1413
MTC-00011658
From: brian mcconnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the proposed case against Microsoft, the proposed settlement
appears to be fair and just, and is definitely in the best interest
of the consuming public, and thewrefore should be allowed to
proceed.
I want the case closed.
Thanks so much,
Bryan McConnell
1405 Autumn Chase Sq.
Bedford, TX 76022
MTC-00011659
From: W R Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the settlement of the suit.
W.R. Hutchison
MTC-00011660
From: BETTY BOUSHEE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Please settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible under the
term reached with Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This case
has gone on far too long and should never have gone as far as it did
just because some companies wanted to punish Microsoft1s success in
stead of competing.
Betty Boushee
MTC-00011661
From: MORRIS KAY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:12pm
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft Action
Litigation is time and money cosuming. . . . In my opinion, the
settlement proposal by Microsoft, which some states accepted, and
others did not, is fair and equitable. Let's get this problem behind
us.
Morris Kay
MTC-00011662
From: Eric Wanono
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
Firstly, I am sorry about my English, but I am French (nobody is
perfect).
I am very surprised by this judgement and all aspects of them.
It seems to be much more a concurrence driving process than a legal
judgement. I think that it will be great for Microsoft to go in
France, because freedom is more really here than in USA. Nobody can
tell you that you don't be better ore more efficient than another
company. I'm not sure that in case of another company the impact
would be the same. My personal vision of this case is that it seems
to be a ``hunting sorcery''. I not happy to don't have in France
company like Microsoft but I think that U.S. government won't be
happy to have this attitude when this judgement will be view by an
``history'' point of view. And I am not sure that other company who
will take advantage of this situation are more ``customer oriented''
than Microsoft.
Eric Wanono
France
[[Page 25484]]
MTC-00011663
From: B(038)B Cody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
We are of the opinion that enough has been done to Microsoft re:
its problems with the Department of Justice. There has been a fair
settlement upon which dedicated men have agreed after a most lengthy
process. Surely now is the time for the remaining states to agree to
come together and begin to serve the public in its wishes for an end
to this matter. Further litigation will only serve to disrupt
consumer confidence and our economy, and cost many more thousands
and thousands of dollars (most likely in the millions, actually).
Kindly put a stop to this and ask the remaining entities to agree to
that which has gone before. Thank you.
Barbara Cody
MTC-00011664
From: m cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:13pm
Subject: Viewpoint
Are these other nine (9) states hungry for money? May be these
other nine (9) should remove their Microsoft software programs from
state's computers and make there own system. Then give back to
Microsoft their software and promise never to use Microsoft's
software again or Microsoft can take each one of those states to
court for using Microsoft's software.
Mel. Cochran
Riverside,CA
MTC-00011665
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the country and the economy will be better off with the
current settlement than to drag it through further litigation. It
does appear Microsoft was guilty of some antitrust violations but it
also appears the current settlement addresses that adequately. I
feel we must also recall the good the innovations of Microsoft have
done for the country as a whole as well as the good it has done for
the economy of each state. For the record: Iam neither a Microsoft
employee nor a stockholder.
Richard LaFramboise
Yakima, Washington
MTC-00011666
From: John Wilder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:14pm
Subject: Comments
The government should get out of the watch dog business when
there is no apparent reason to bother Microsoft. I see no difference
between what the government is doing to Microsoft and what Microsoft
is doing to the public. All businesses have to protect themselves
from crooks and thieves but the Government cannot sit by and let
well enough alone. You pick on Microsoft and let Enron slide until
the public is hurt. Give it up and let Microsoft get on with
business.
John Wilder
MTC-00011667
From: JLynch3D
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:13pm
Subject: comment on MS
I'd like to comment on the Microsoft antitrust situation and
lawsuit. I am not an employee of MS or have any dealings with them
in business. In my opinon, the problems that MS had have been
brought to light, and corrections have already been made. The most
noteable of them being public awareness. Why do I think this is the
most important correction agaisnt MS? For two reasons:
1. A company's reputation is the most important assett they own.
Obviously, MS has take nquite a blow here. This can be evidenced by
the slwodown in their business and the rise to power of newer power
players in the technology industry. Foremost of these are AOL/Time
Warner, which owns the internet business lock, stock, and barrell.
Linux is another product that has come to power as an OS. And as
well as the handheld Palm products, and the cell phones which have
gone to other OS's. if anything, in these competitive technology
markets, MS may end up finding themselves squeezed into an area of
selling products into the slowing and mature PC market, and being
out run by newer companies in new innovative areas of technology.
2. Awareness is important becasue consumers and business owners
need to constantly be aware that they are responsible for the
decisons and choices they make. . . and that there are choices. This
strikes at the heart of what America is--responsibility for our
actions, and for freedom. People who do not like MS can buy an Apple
OS computer, or a Linux OS computer, or other alternatives like a Be
based OS and computer.
Personallty, I use an MS based computer. I do not think it is
the best OS or browser in the world and it has alot of faults. But
so do all technology products in these complex areas. However, I am
thankful that MS is a compan ythat has unified the computer industry
by giving it a platform that people can communicate with, and this
may be the one single factor that has lead to al lthe innovation and
productivity of this country in the last ten years.
In summary, I do not think MS should be penalized further. It is
time to move on--the technology world is not where it was five years
ago. It's also time to be thankful and hopeful that MS tremains a
vital and strong part of American industry. Without it I belive our
entire economy would suffer. And God help us if another foreign
company rises to poewer and supplants MS.
Regard,
Jim Lynch
MTC-00011668
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a retired citizen, using MS Windows 98, I would like to say I
wish our Justice Department would stop any further action against
Microsoft. I am very pleased with the company and in no way feel
injured by Microsoft. On the contrary I feel they have helped me by
making their products available. I have many friends who feel the
same way and and it is apparent to me that most of the objections to
Microsoft are from their competitors rathar than their customers.
Success in the market place should be encouraged by our government,
not hindered. When will our government officials stop petty projects
and concentrate on the issues of real importance to the nations
citizens? If Mr. Gates had contributed huge sums to our political
parties and cadidates, would the situation be the same? If Microsoft
were located in Mass or Utah would their politician's opposition to
Microsoft be as strong? I think not. I see this as a political game
and object strenuously.
Robert T. Fellows
Tucson AZ
MTC-00011669
From: Dick Boulanger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Our household is unanimous in the opinion that the Microsoft
settlement is sufficient and the case should be concluded ASAP. Our
economy has sustained enough damage. It is high time to start
healing the wounds and let Microsoft and competitor's management get
back to growing the industry instead of trying to wreck it with
Justice Department help. The nine desenting states should get in
line with the majority for the good of the country.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard J. and Mary Ann Boulanger
8117 N 12th St.
Tacoma, WA 98406
MTC-00011670
From: Alex Brubaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I am a Stanford MBA who has been working in Silicon Valley for
several years, some of those in the high tech industry. It is my
view that Microsoft has repeatedly out-muscled its competition,
wielding its operating system as a big stick, and falling on the
wrong side of this nation's anti-trust laws.
The Proposed Final Judgment lets Microsoft off too easy and
hardly constitutes a deterrent to future anti-trust violators.
Furthermore, it doesn't eliminate the critical components that have
enabled them to engage in this illegal behavior.
I strongly urge you to impose heavier penalties on Microsoft
that will restore competition and force them to play by the rules
like everyone else.
Sincerely,
Alex Brubaker
San Jose, CA
MTC-00011671
From: WP/MH
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25485]]
Date: 1/15/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
This absurdity has gone on long enough, it is time to settle and
stop wasting the public's money, time and energy--the latter items
would be better spent on real `energy' and accountancy crooks, who
are screwing the consumer and their own employees.
PE
MTC-00011672
From: Gerald Gaumer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As a concerned citizen, I was very much upset with the manner in
which Microsoft was ``dragged'' down by the prosecutions of the
Clinton Administration and his appointed members of the Justice
Department. If one reviews the history of our financial markets,
there is a direct correlation between the Federal findings of March,
2000 and the subsequent declines of our publicly held corporations,
with special attention to those in the high tech sector. Microsoft,
though some of its actions may be interpreted as unfair, also must
be viewed as a true innovator, willing and able to make the
tremendous investment necessary to radically economize the manners
in which we transact business or communicate with each other. Sunn,
Oracle and others may cry ``wolf, wolf, wolf . . .,'' but there is
no small amount of envy mixed in with such cries, as they vie for
position in a competitive marketplace.
So enough--let's put this matter behind us, let's get on with
rebuilding our economy, get on with innovation and move forward in
the grandest way possible. If some states wish not to be a part of
the proposed settlement, then let that be their fate, stewing about
old business as the rest of us venture forth.
Sincerely,
Gerald W. Gaumer
[email protected]
Marietta, GA
MTC-00011673
From: Ken Horowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement proposed by the Department of Justice
is far too lenient--it is a mere slap on the wrist to Microsoft, a
confirmed monopolist. The settlement as proposed SHOULD NOT BE
ACCEPTED. Instead, the federal government should push ahead along
the lines of the other states who have not caved in the Microsoft.
The DoJ settlement will accomplish nothing, and will leave Microsoft
free to continue its monopolistic ways. Please push for a tougher
settlement that will more effectively restrict Microsoft.
Ken Horowitz
[email protected]
203-637-4910
3 Cherry Lane, Old Greenwich, CT 06870
MTC-00011674
From: DONALD J. RESTLY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
See attached file in support of the settlement.
9436 Wildwood Drive
Chardon, Ohio 44024
January l5,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to take a moment to give my support for the settlement
negotiated between Microsoft and the Justice Department last year. I
feel this is a good agreement for both sides and gives everyone the
opportunity to move forward.
The settlement is comprehensive and mandates significant
concessions from Microsoft in order to remain in compliance.
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer broad new rights to configure
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs that
compete with programs included within Windows. And Microsoft must
not retaliate against any computer maker who ships software that
competes with anything in the Windows operating system. Microsoft
must also subject themselves to monitoring by a Technical Committee
to assure compliance with the settlement.
At a time of difficult circumstances for our economy, this
agreement could provide a small boost. The settlement will also give
each side the chance to focus on other issues. For Microsoft, that
means developing new software and for the government it means
fighting the current recession.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Restly
MTC-00011675
From: dave cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I want the US Justice Dept to stop persecuting MSFT for moving
America ahead. If you want to end this recession to end drop this
lawsuit and settle with MSFT today. This suit is hurting our
economy.
MTC-00011676
From: Francie Hanks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I BELIEVE THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR AND THE LITIGATION HAS GONE ON
WAY TOO LONG. I STRONGLY URGE THE NINE STATES WHO HAVEN'T JOINED IN
THE SETTLEMENT TO DO SO. IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON!
MTC-00011677
From: dwwrayti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Let's settle this now!!! Dragging this out hinders any recovery
effort in the tech area. It's like killing the goose that laid the
golden egg!!
Don Wray
Carpe Diem!!!
MTC-00011678
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I understand you are seeking public comment on the proposed
antitrust settlement with the 9 states and Microsoft, and that the
District Court will consider these comments when it determines
whether the settlement is indeed in the public interest. I believe
the settlement is very much in the public interest and should be
finalized immediately.
Over a year and a half ago, on May 7, 2000, I wrote my
representative and two senators to express my concern about the
Justice Department's handling of the Microsoft matter. At that time
the DOJ was presenting its case to Judge Jackson, who appeared to be
inclined to break up Microsoft. I recalled how in the 1970s and 80s
all attention was on the successes of Japan; U.S. companies
seemingly could do nothing right. One company that changed all that
was Microsoft, which became a leader of the U.S. technology surge.
We all benefited from this leadership. On the way home from our good
paying jobs we could stop off at a Starbucks and have an expensive
cup of coffee. Why not? We Americans were doing well in the 90s;
unemployment was at all time lows. Much of the litigation initiated
by the Justice Department and opportunists like Barksdale was
misdirected. Surely Microsoft did wrong, but the current proposed
settlement addresses that. The current holdouts to the settlement
have an agenda of their own, which is not in the best interest of
America. To achieve their ends, they would have us become a society
that eats its young! This case against Microsoft has gone on too
long. Let's get back to work.
Very truly yours,
F. Joseph McCrosson
MTC-00011679
From: Earl Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If the government would pay more attention to companies like
Enron and less on Microsoft, the country would be much healthier.
The Microsoft cow has been milked long enough.
Sincerely,
Earl Johnston
MTC-00011680
From: Jack Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I urge the respective state to accept the current settlement
agreement. It is fair and equitable for all parties concerned.
MTC-00011681
From: ED SAVCHENKO
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US Justice Dept.
I believe that the Microsoft case should be settled now. It
seems that the only ones who win in a situation like this is the
attorney's.
[[Page 25486]]
Ed Savchenko
MTC-00011682
From: John Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is John Holmes Dean III and I am a 25 year old computer
engineer. I have been programming since I was ten on a wide variety
of computers; Apple IIe, Commodore Amiga, Macintoshes and IBM-PCs.
The purpose of this letter is to highlight the technical
inefficiencies of early Microsoft software and come to the
conclusion that given a level playing field, no informed consumer
would pick Microsoft's products based on quality. I will then talk
about the time that Microsoft took over one hundred dollars from me
in exchange for nothing in a move that stifled competition in a
education setting (similar to the settlement Microsoft has currently
proposed).
Between the years of 1987 and 1996, I was an active user and
programmer of Commodore Amigas. The Amiga, which never achieved more
than a low single-digit market share, occupies an interesting niche
in computer history. Released in 1985 (one year after the ubiquitous
Macintosh) to great fanfare, the Amiga was the first true
``multimedia'' computer. At a time when PCs had EGA (16 colors) and
Macintoshes were black & white, the Amiga was capable of 4096 colors
on screen. The Amiga had 4 channel 8-bit digital stereo sound when
the PC had internal speakers and the Macintosh had 1 channel. The
Commodore Amiga shipped with Workbench 1.0 which was a pre-emptive
multitasking, graphical user interface operating system.
I spent my teenage years engrossed with my Amiga. Because
Workbench could do pre-emptive multitasking (a form of running
multiple programs where the operating system gives and takes
processor time away from the individual programs), I would commonly
use my computer to download files over my modem, listen to digital
music files and play games at the same time. During this time,
Microsoft's flagship operating system was Windows 3.X. Windows 3.X
used a form of multitasking called cooperative multitasking. Each
program had the responsibility to relinquish control of the
processor to the next program. Cooperative multitasking is the same
form of multitasking used on Macintoshes before Mac OS X and is
considered an inferior method. It was hard to impossible to get
multiple program to run correctly at the same time on early version
of windows. When it was possible, the systems requirements were far
greater. Windows 95 had a limited form of pre-emptive multitasking
that was a mix between pre-emptive and cooperative. Windows uses a
single letter for drive names. Windows uses the 8.3 naming
convention. Windows, to this day, can not really name a file more
than 8 letters long. ``Long'' file names are stored in the
``information'' field, which no longer exists, obviously. Windows
3.X involved 3 steps to make a disk or CD-ROM appear on the screen,
whereas you only had to stick the disk in on the Amiga/Macintosh to
have it appear on the screen. Windows 95 and greater still requires
one step because after you insert a floppy or CD-ROM, you must still
double-click on `My Computer' to see it.
`Plug-n-Pray' is a term used to describe Microsoft's `Plug-n-
Play' system. The DOS command line was inferior to Workbench's CLI
(Workbench had a command line as well) because you couldn't copy and
paste. there was no history and no command pipe. I can nit-pick
forever when it comes to Windows, however I will admit that most of
Window's problems are related to its MS-DOS ancestry and the many,
many shortcomings of the IBM-PC architecture.
My other hobby was being a ``troll.'' In internet terminology, a
troll posts highly controversial statements to illicit as much
feedback as possible (called ``feeding the troll''). The term troll
had not yet been invented, but I took great pleasure in posting
messages to IBM-PC and Microsoft electronic bulletin board systems
explaining how inferior IBM-PCs and Microsoft Windows really was. I
would of course receive tens if not hundreds of responses, all of
which I would respond to-- beginning debates which would last for
years. I convinced no less than a dozen people of the truth, all of
which purchased Amigas and some of which are still life-long
friends.
To this day, I have not purchased Microsoft software with one
exception. When I was earning my Electrical Engineering degree at
the University of Texas, Microsoft signed a deal with the University
to provide copies of Microsoft software at $5 a CD. The cost to the
university was 100 million dollars which was added to each student's
``Computer Fees.'' In that respect, Microsoft stole nearly $25 a
semester from me for five semesters so that I could have the honor
of buying Microsoft software for $5 a CD. I hated and despised this
move by Microsoft because Microsoft knew that this was the only way
to get a college student like me to pay for their software in the
first place. Furthermore, because students could get Microsoft
Visual Studio for $25 (5 CDs) all programming classes began using
Visual Studio because other compilers such as Borland and Metrowerks
(where I can currently employed) could no longer compete, even with
student pricing. I watched the programming classes at UT go from
Metrowerks only to Visual Studio only in the course of two years.
Microsoft's settlement will allow Microsoft to achieve the same
goal in the secondary and high school education market. By giving
out Microsoft software for free, students will learn and become
accustomed to Microsoft software and not made aware of the
alternatives. The proposed Microsoft settlement amounts to nothing
more than an exclusive advertisement contract between education and
Microsoft.
In conclusion, I have personally seen the negative effects of
Microsoft and IBM-PCs on the computer market. Microsoft took ten
years to produce a product that (almost) met the capabilities of
Workbench. Furthermore, Microsoft signed a deal that forced me to
give them money just to continue my education. I now work for a
Microsoft competitor where I will do my part to bring the giant
down. I hope the Department of Justice does theirs.
John Holmes Dean III
MTC-00011683
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:30pm
Subject: I am against any more of the allegations re: Microsoft
They have done so much for the entire world, that there is just
no action other than to be grateful to them for all that they have
given, the ``Quantum leap for mankind.''
Cynthia's Designs
[email protected]
MTC-00011684
From: The Unrein Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to register my support for the settlement terms
reached by the Department of Justice and Microsoft regarding the
antitrust dispute on November 2. I feel that ending the litigation
will be beneficial to the economy, and the federal government made
the right choice.
Competition is extremely healthy, and every company needs to do
business as they see fit. Let's let businesses worry about business,
and government worry about government issues. There is no need for
unnecessary regulation. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that
the market prospers. Agreeing to the terms of the settlement will
allow the market to do just that.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Please settle
this matter and allow Microsoft to get back to business as usual.
Sincerely,
Annette Unrein
[email protected]
435-674-9816
P. O. Box 1003,
St. George, UT 84771
MTC-00011685
From: Michael Jaszewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:31pm
Subject: anti trust lawsuit
I think what Microsoft did was ok. No one was hurt by it.
Microsoft single handedly created a industry in our country possible
the world over. It's no different what I see everyday business's
doing business.
Example--I go to taco bell I can't buy coke, only pepsi why is
that isn't that like a monopoly same with computers I buy a comp
it's got aol on it not earthlink why is that.
MTC-00011686
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Various States Should End Their Lawsuit and begin to let the
USA economy begin to heal. Consumers have not been hurt by Microsoft
in fact we have all benefited from low prices of software and
millions of 401K's have seen only profits because of Microsoft. End
this immediately and lets stop wasting millions of dollars of our
taxed income.
The Stillman Family
[[Page 25487]]
Pepper Pike, OH
MTC-00011687
From: Tom Gottshalk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the DOJ,
The real issue before you is: Now much money do the non-settling
states want before they settle their anti-trust cases with
Microsoft? This case is no longer about justice for the PC user, it
not about the in-justice of a monopoly, it is not about justice for
the violation of federal law, but it is about nine states attorney
generals trying to get extra money for their state's budgets. The
case is about money and political power for politicians not about
that Microsoft charged too much for the Windows operating system,
which is ridiculous and has never been proven publicly. For all of
the state officials if they get money out of Microsoft and it helps
their political careers so much the better, right.
Regards,
Tom Gottshalk
344 Remington Dr.
Oviedo, FL 32765
MTC-00011688
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let's end this harazment once & for all. Close out per the
latest agreement.
George Chironis,
Melville, N.Y. 11747
MTC-00011689
From: JP Altier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am deeply concerned at the way our government has pursued the
destruction of Microsoft, one of the most productive and beneficial
companies in our world. In a truly free society, where property
rights are vigorously protected, there is absolutely no need for
antitrust laws. Microsoft, in fact, is a prime example of the
concept that a company can sustain a dominant market position if and
only if it provides a markedly superior product than any of its
competitors. The very nature of the fact that Microsoft's products
are inexpensive and ubiquitous has benefited this world
immeasurably. Microsoft, therefore, deserves the market position and
profits it has reaped in exchange for the products it has produced.
The fact that Microsoft negotiated vigorously with its customers
and competitors should not be a crime. Microsoft did not deprive
other companies or consumers of their property rights. Nor did
Microsoft obtain its will by deception or physical force. Every
company no matter how large or small should have the right to
control the destiny of their own products and the right to determine
the terms and conditions of their business relationships so long as
their practices never include deception or physical force. For a
court to have retroactively declared that Microsoft was a monopoly
some time in the past and that all of its otherwise legal actions
are now criminal acts goes against our most basic instincts of
fairness and justice. I strongly urge all parties involved in this
case to mitigate the harm to Microsoft and our economy that will
result from the enforcement of our misguided antitrust laws. At the
very least, I urge the Department of Justice and States Attorney
Generals to cease litigation in this matter and I urge the presiding
judge to accept the Stipulation and Revised Final Judgment dated
November 6th, 2001.
Sincerely,
Joseph P. Altier
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011690
From: Larry M. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:38pm
Subject: settle this thing!
Millions of Americans have had their 401K plans turned totally
upside down by this drawn out suit. Settle this thing once and for
all!! The fact of the matter is without Bill Gates inventing Windows
I couldn't even run a computer nor couple most other Americans that
use them every day.
Sincerely
Larry Johnson
MTC-00011691
From: Mark Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am a supporter of you and President Bush as well as Microsoft
Corp. I believe the current settlement is the best course of action
at this time. I don't believe the case should have been pursued in
the first place, but since the damage has been done can we please
put it to rest right away.
I work in the technical industry as a computer programmer. I am
not employed (nor ever have been) by Microsoft, but I am a firm
believer that they have done an enourmous amount of good in the
industry. Their servers and development environment have enabled me
to be a successful professional. I am grateful to them--and feel
they have been unjustly ``picked on''. I understand the market is
extremely competitive and unsavory practices occur. However, these
unsavory practices are done by all parties--if IBM, Sun or Oracle
were in Microsoft's shoes--they would have done the same things.
Hopefully I would be consistent in wanting an end to those cases as
well--were they brought up.
Please put the case to rest.
Sincerely,
Mark Reed
Mark M. Reed
Senior Systems Engineer
(972) 728-8161
[email protected]
MTC-00011692
From: Dick H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
despite the stubbornness of our Atty. General Blumenthal here in
CT. it is obvious that it is in everyone's best interest that this
problem be settled and solved and put behind us.please do it!!
MTC-00011693
From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:46pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Case against Microsoft
If Microsoft broke the law punish them but don't reorganize the
Company or tell them what they can include in their products.
[email protected]
MTC-00011694
From: Erratadata@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen, I wish to urge you to finalize and
settle this matter immediately. Prolonging litigation is not in the
best interest of the American economy in general and the American
people specifically. Getting this matter settled NOW will enable
Microsoft as well as any and all other companies concerned to get on
with the innovation and product development that has marked the
progress and growth of this industry for the past two decades.
Sincerely,
Gary Prickett
Mission Viejo, CA
MTC-00011695
From: Sightsaver@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlment
It is high time for this case to be settled, especially in light
of the events of 9/11 and the recent Enron debacle. A few publicity-
seeking, self-righteous AGs, supported by Microsoft's competitors
should not be allowed to derail what is in this country's best
interest. Tracey Linden DO
MTC-00011696
From: fitz--stewart@ hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case. It's in the best interests of the
economy, the technology sector, and the entire country.
Regards,
Fitz Stewart
13544 Tabscott Drive
Chantilly, VA 20151
CC:fitz--stewart@ hotmail.com@inetgw
MTC-00011697
From: Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:48pm
Subject: enough!!!
This settlement should never have even been a question, but now
that it has been agreed to, the vendetta against Microsoft needs to
end. It should never have begun. Just because they invented a better
mousetrap, they have been victimized by our government. I am
ashambed of this.
Sincerely,
Veta Wilson
HCR 76 Box 66
Coleman, Texas 76834
[[Page 25488]]
MTC-00011698
From: Don Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Case Settlement
Dear Justices,
As a citizen of the United States I would like to express my
opinion on the settlement issue of the Microsoft case. I feel the
offer Microsoft has given is fair and in the best interest of the
public. I urge all states to accept this settlement and end the case
as soon as possible.
Any further suites or punishment of Microsoft is not in the best
interest of the general public and will only harm and impair
Microsoft's future ability to continue delivering cutting edge
software at reasonable prices. Many if not most of the nation rely
on Microsoft's quality software every day for our livelihood. If you
try to cripple or punish Microsoft further than has already been
proposed will be detrimental to the public who rely on their
software.
Any further larger fines will simply make the software more
expensive for the end users and all of the general public will be
harmed. Please come to a reasonable settlement as quickly as
possible.
Thank you.
Don Hall, DrPH
Clackamas, Oregon
MTC-00011699
From: LeeAndrews@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the DOJ's proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states
and Microsoft. It's time for the litigation to end.
Lee Andrews
Richardson, TX
MTC-00011700
From: Stanley Shoeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let's make a settlement and get this behind us. We have more
important things to settle at this point.
Stan Shoeman
2983 Old Bridgeport Way
San Diego CA 92111
MTC-00011701
From: B.J. Fornadley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please, let's not waste any more Government money in this case.
The proposed settlement is more than fair to all parties.
Thank you
B. J. Fornadley
MTC-00011702
From: James Scheil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:53pm
Subject: Class Action Suit
Those nine states should settle the Microsoft class action as
proposed. Thanks-Ken & Charline Scheil
MTC-00011703
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i am in favor of upholding the agreement reached between the
u.s. department of justice and the microsoft corporation. while it
will not satisfy some folks, particularly those who tend to see
microsoft as a villain to be severely punished at every opportunity,
it seems fair to me. microsoft's culpability is proven, but is not,
i believe, as serious as the dissenting states' attorneys general
claim. and i see no reason to continue the litigation process. the
immediate installation of a court-appointed overseer is more
appropriate--if we are most interested in protecting the consumer.
detmar h. finke CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011704
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although I am not a lawyer I have followed the antitrust
litigation in connection with Microsoft and hereby submit my opinion
to the effect that I agree that settlement is good for the consumer
and the american economy, which right now needs all the help it can
get. Grace Larrinua from rolygrace
MTC-00011705
From: CWO Mel Estes USMC(Ret.)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
. Dear USDOJ, I would hope that this settlement is the end of
the this long ordeal of stifling the economy and the technology
sector. In my opinion it has been a witch hunt from the beginning.
MS first established the computer industry years ago, caused the
tech revolution, and thus has caused a reason for many of their
competitors to even exist. It is easy to see that they are gaining
up on them now. Please end this mess. Respectfully, Mel Estes
MTC-00011706
From: Bruce Rocheleau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:56pm
Subject: comments on Microsoft case
I hope that the case is settled quickly. I think that the
settlement is fair and provides the basis for rapid technological
advances in the near and longer term future. I know that people like
myself who use computer technology as part of their jobs look
forward to having this uncertainty solved quickly.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rocheleau
MTC-00011707
From: Brian Satterfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
It all comes down to choices.
I am a software engineer and have worked with computers for the
last 6 years. My parents have recently started using computers and
it has become obvious to me just how strong the Micro$oft hold is on
the industry.
It is my belief that the proposed settlement will do nothing to
curtail Micro$oft's actions, growth or domination of the industry
and market. I believe that Micro$oft will easily find ways to skirt
the edges of the settlement and still be in accordance. They will
integrate their applications more closely with the OS so that they
are indistiguishable and therefore impossible to separate. I agree
with Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly ``Five minutes after any
agreement is signed with Microsoft, they'll be thinking of how to
violate the agreement. They're predators. They crush their
competition. They crush new ideas. They stifle innovation. That's
what they do.''
I agree heavily with Matthew Szulik's comments to the Senate and
feel that the government needs to step in and stop the wave of
Micro$oft domination. One way would be to ban all use of commercial
operating systems on government resources. Another would be to
mandate that for the next so many years they will spend money on
hardware for every school district in the nation.
Red Hat software corporation has made the following offer
(amendments to the DOJ PFJ and I agree with it completely: Microsoft
redirects the value of their proposed software donation to the
purchase of additional hardware for the school districts. This would
increase the number of computers available under the original
proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, and would increase
the number of systems per school from approximately 14 to at least
70. Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red
Hat Linux operating system, office applications and associated
capabilities to any school system in the United States. Red Hat will
provide online support for the software through the Red Hat Network.
Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time limit
at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew their
licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no time
limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red Hat
Network online distribution channel.
I hope the DOJ can see that the injustice done to Micro$oft's
competition and to the Open Source community needs to be dealt with
in a heavy manner.
Brian Satterfield
Engineer--Lockheed Martin --
MTC-00011708
From: hicktest@hotmail. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I urge the court to bless the DOJ/Microsoft settlement. It's
impossible to please everyone with a settlement (including Microsoft
biggest competitors). Both sides seem happy with the compromise. I
think the courts dictating which features are allowed in a product
will spell disaster for our economy. It's time to forget this mess
and stop destroying one of America's best corporations.
[[Page 25489]]
Sincerely,
Matt Hickey
Glastonbury, CT
MTC-00011709
From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the matter of the Microsoft settlement, I am convinced that
it is in the best interests of consumers and our economy that it be
accepted by all parties.
Much time, effort and money has already been wasted on this
effort to discredit and humble one of this country's finest
companies. More people use Microsoft products because they satisfy.
Get over it.
Robert Pellet
Edison, New Jersey
MTC-00011710
From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 12:54pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Please, let's not waste any more Government money in this case.
The proposed settlement is more than fair to all parties.
Sincerely
Tina Chan
MTC-00011711
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time to settle this nonsense the government has imposed
upon us by constantly attacking Microsoft. Am I the only citizen who
noticed that with the first court actions against Microsoft, the
stock market nosedived and has never come back?
Competition is just that--competition. Instead of whining about
Microsoft, why don't these equally wealthy competitors go do
something better than Microsoft?
If we ever want this country back on it's feet--and as a
business owner--I certainly do, then we need to settle and end this
. . . .Surely, we have more to do with our time than attack t he
major companies in this country--which, if you haven't noticed--are
having enough problems.
With this settlement, I believe our finanacial markets will be
revived.
Phyllis G. Schaul
Scottsdale, Arizona
MTC-00011712
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this painful, government sponsored targeting of
Microsoft. The innovation that has been stopped as a result of this
harrasement and the destruction to our economy is out of line with
the already imposed penalities. No longer can justice be the banner
for persuing Microsoft, now it is simply finanical greed, fed by
biased legal teams.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011713
From: david j. oakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs:
With respect the comments on the proposed action, I am opposed
to the Governments Action. From my point of view, having a multitude
of operating systems, would be akin to moving from one universal
language which all understand, to multiple languages, to which few
understand more than one or two.
The resulting catastrophic incompatability between operating
systems would destroy the usefulness of comunications between
computers in different locations.
Respectfully
David J. Oakley
MTC-00011714
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the proposed settlement and urge its approval. I
am a professional software developer and a consumer of software. As
both, I do not fell I have been harmed by Microsoft in any way.
Approve this settlement and put an end to Microsoft competitors
using the courts to fight their business battles.
Sincerely,
David Perdue
Houston, TX
MTC-00011715
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We feel that business has the right to research, develop,
promote and sell new ideas and products. That's what the American
way is all about--freedom, now more than ever. We encourage the
government to end the litigation process against Microsoft and carry
out the settlement that has been reached. It will eventually be best
for consumers--prices will be kept down and new products will be
available more readily if the costs of litigation, etc, are kept to
a minimum and the company can spend resources on research and
development and getting products to market.
Phyllis and Hal Cutcher
Tucson, Az
[email protected]
MTC-00011716
From: Paul Holsted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen, I have only a limited knowledge of computers but it
is very apparent that Microsoft has been a very important figure in
the advancement of our national growth which has been astounding and
wold not have reached this high level were it not for such firms as
Microsoft. I feel that it is downright unfair to penalize Microsoft
for its creative genius. The agreement between the Department of
Justice and the nine states and Microsoft appears to be fair and any
further litigation by the Attorneys General of the nine states which
have not agreed to the DoJ/Microsoft agreement may be based on
ulterior motives in pushing for heavier penalties. Therefore I urge
the Department of Justice to not line up with the arguments of these
states but instead to push for final resolution of this litigation
so that Microsoft and the rest of our economy can move ahead. I feel
that this issue has had a negative effect on the economy and so
let's get the nation moving ahead and get this matter settled as
soon as possible.
Paul G. Holsted,
9871 Mammoth Drive,
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
MTC-00011717
From: Sherm Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
Dear Sir or Madam:
These comments are in opposition to Massachusetts Attorney
General Tom Reilly's position on the Microsoft settlement as stated
in the January 15, 2002, Boston Globe Public Forum piece,
``Microsoft case key to tech's future,'' http://boston.com/
dailyglobe2/Ol5/business/Microsoft case--key--to--tech--s--
future+.shtml In this article, Attorney General Reilly makes
suggestions to pursue remedies against Microsoft. In my opinion,
that may result in the collapse of one of the world's foremost
technology providers and the PC systems it makes work.
Microsoft develops two distinct software product lines: an
Operating System (Windows), which acts to assign priorities to
internal PC operations and hardware and is rarely seen or worked on
by the typical PC user, and applications, which perform specific
tasks for the PC user like word processing, spread sheet
manipulation and presentation preparation (MS Word, Excel, Power
Point).
The product at the core of Mr. Reilly's objections is the
Operating System (OS). Developers of applications need to structure
their software to function within the parameters specified by an OS.
They have to do this for any OS, and many may do so for more than
one: like Windows and Linux, for example. However, there is such a
thing as optimization: making the applications run efficiently. Most
application vendors want to have their product run as fast as
possible on as many PCs as possible, so they optimize their product
for Windows, the most used OS.
Now, even if additional OSs are introduced just because Federal
and State Governments believe that will lead to more and better
products (it didn't with IBM's OS2), applications will still be
optimized for just one, but not all OSs. This will result in a PC
having its installed OS being able to run efficiently some, but not
all, applications because application developers will not get enough
return on their investment to
[[Page 25490]]
optimize their products for multiple
OSs. Good business strategy says that the version of the product
that should be most heavily optimized is the one that will be used
on the PCs that have the most frequently installed OS. For now,
that's Windows.
This is not a restriction on emerging technologies. It is a fact
of business, and contradicts Mr. Reilly's objective to have
``computer users . . . have a full choice of programs,'' and to ``.
. . have [computer users have] the freedom to customize their
systems with the programs and software they want.'' To have the full
choice of optimized, efficient and fast-executing software, there
should be one prevalent operating system in the same way there is
and for years has been, essentially, one prevalent PC hardware
architecture based on the original IBM PC. (Before you go there,
based on sales and available applications, Apple is really a non-
player despite Microsoft providing a version of Office that runs
efficiently on Apple systems. Notice how it takes a company the size
of Microsoft to provide its flagship application optimized for more
than one OS and hardware architecture.)
The chaos surrounding creating competing hardware architectures
would be akin to forcing into existence a second personal
transportation system in which vehicles would run on tracks. What
would be the cost of developing a second infrastructure? What would
be the response of the vehicle manufacturers? Would there be as
many? Would we still see the same vehicle quality? Would we still
have as much vehicle innovation? Would there be as many vehicle
choices? What would the vehicles cost?
The same chaos would occur if Windows were gutted so that was no
longer the prevalent OS. Windows may devolve in the future, but to
force it would be disastrous. Technology evolution and user
acceptance is generally based on rules similar to natural biological
selection. Windows may fall into disfavor and be replaced by another
OS, but Microsoft may be the company that creates that successor.
Why try to artificially prevent that?
Look what has happened with forcing High Definition TV into
existence. Local TV program producers for all but the largest
markets don't want to invest in HDTV production equipment until
broadcasters invest in the new transmission equipment. Networks are
reluctant to invest in HDTV equipment because there are insufficient
local affiliates that can carry HDTV transmissions. TV set
manufacturers don't want to invest in building HDTV sets until
broadcasters transmit HDTV programs. Cable service providers don't
want to invest in HDTV cable systems until there are HDTV programs
in their markets and there are HDTV sets to receive them. Buyers
don't want to pay exorbitant prices for HDTV sets and/or HDTV tuners
and receiving antennas until there are enough programs being
broadcast to make it worthwhile. (The only reason that there are any
HDTV sets around is DVDs, and even those sets don't include HDTV
tuners.) So, we're in a stand-off situation with the conversion
process taking much longer than the Federal Government wanted.
But, the real problem is not HDTV technology, but the decisions
that broadcasters need to make about which one of the many picture
quality options to transmit. This is contributing to the TV set
manufacturers' reluctance to invest in sets that are optimized
around one methodology and is keeping the variety of HDTV sets small
and their price high.
This sounds similar to the problems that would develop if
multiple OSs were edicted into existence or if Microsoft were forced
to relinquish their pre-eminent OS-developer position. The PC world
would wind up with either fewer applications or the ones that were
optimized for all OSs would become considerably more expensive.
In fact, there is more than one OS currently available. The
second OS that's most often noted is Linux. Now, how many popular
applications are there currently for this OS? Who's stopping
software developers from creating them?
As to computer makers not having control of their systems'
desktops, Mr. Reilly and the Department of Justice should realize
that ``computer makers'' build hardware, not software, and that
ultimately, the user controls what's on the desktop--not the
hardware manufacturer, not the software manufacturer, but the user.
And, it's not clear what an ``unbundled'' version of Windows
does for anyone. What application is Mr. Reilly suggesting is now
bundled? A browser? Well, it really is possible to install and use a
browser other than Internet Explorer (like Netscape); it really is
possible to install and use Lotus Smartsuite rather than Microsoft
Office (neither of which is bundled with Windows). So what's the
issue here?
Here's another similar situation. Think of an automobile
dashboard as being like a PC OS and the car radio as an application.
At the moment, it's not usually possible to buy a car without some
kind of vehicle manufacturers' radio pre-installed. Will the Federal
Government and the States require automobile manufacturers to offer
all cars without radios so purchasers can buy their own from either
the vehicle manufacturer or some other vendor?
Well, right now many cars owners can have their OEM radio
replaced with an after-market one. However, not all auto
manufacturers' radios have the same dimensions. And, if one examines
the choices carefully, one finds that the variety of replacement
radios available for Daimler-Chrysler and GM vehicles is far smaller
than those available for cars using DIN dimensional standards.
(Remember, too, the radio with the oval-shaped front panel used in
the Ford Taurus? There don't seem to be any after-market products
available for direct replacement.)
Daimler-Chrysler and GM radios happen to be pretty good. But
will the Federal Government and the States want a common form factor
legislated that may diminish the quality, ease-of-use and feature
flexibility of Daimler-Chrysler, GM and Ford radios?
Mr. Reilly also contradicts his objective when he tries to make
his point about ``. . . Microsoft disclos[ing] the necessary
technical information so that handheld devices, servers and networks
can work with Windows. . . '' If Federal and State Governments want
this, won't there be more software development for the Windows OS
than there is now rather than less? Doesn't this create more
products and business for Microsoft? (And, in point of fact, there
is more than one OS for handhelds already, and they and servers and
networks can work with Windows.)
Finally, perhaps it's wishful thinking, but one seriously doubts
that the 3,200 software companies and 200,000 high-tech workers in
Massachusetts would ever see any benefit from what Mr.
Reilly wants to do to Microsoft.
Sherman H. Grossman Needham, MA
MTC-00011718
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this pitiful, state government sponsored targeting of
Microsoft. The innovation that has been stopped as a result of this
harassment and the destruction to our economy is way out of line
with the already imposed penalties. No longer can justice be the
banner for pursuing Microsoft, now it is simply financial greed on
the part of the states. CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011719
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
Please let this end once and for all,I believe that Microsoft
has been very cooperative,etc. At least they didn't loose any
records like Anderson or Enron.,or try to hid anything.Go after the
real crooks like Enron,who left many middle class citizens without
any money in their 401K,funny how bigshots could take money out but
workers who save for retirement could not.I believe you have a much
bigger problem than Microsoft and Bill Gates.
MTC-00011720
From: Diane Nice
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Nice
429 Morwood Road
Telford, PA 18969
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
[[Page 25491]]
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Diane
MTC-00011721
From: Randall Page
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Randall Page
348 Freya Drive
Solvang, ca 93463
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into
[[Page 25492]]
the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Randall S. Page
MTC-00011722
From: C. B. Goff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. B. Goff
2416 Denise Street
Benton, AR 72015-2624
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
C. B. Goff
MTC-00011723
From: Kelly Baker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kelly Baker
12337 Jones Road
Houston, TX 77070
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kelly Baker
MTC-00011724
From: Joseph W Pfahnl
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph W Pfahnl
2197 Glenkirk Dr
San Jose, CA 95124
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Joseph W Pfahnl
MTC-00011725
From: Andrea Palmer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrea Palmer
225 Capstan Drive
Placida, FL 33946-2221
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Andrea Palmer
MTC-00011726
From: Thomas Dill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Dill
2325 Browning Drive
Janesville, WI 53546-1143
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Thomas Dill
MTC-00011727
From: Amy Hanson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Amy Hanson
6868 North Overhill #3
Chicago, IL 60631
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Amy Hanson
MTC-00011728
From: Sally Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this litigation. It's time to move on. Microsoft
has greatly benefitted consumers throughout the world. This mission
of punishment is only costly taxpayers and Microsoft excessive
expense. Please settle.
Sally A. Arnold, CPCU, ARM, ARe
Risk Management Consultant
Self-Insurance Specialists, Inc.
MTC-00011729
From: James Coombs
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Coombs
11127 Oviatt Road
Honor, MI 49640
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
James Coombs
MTC-00011730
From: Kathy Sparks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathy Sparks
692 Cobble Dr.
Montrose, CO 81401
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kathy Sparks
MTC-00011731
From: Richard Rizzo
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Rizzo
218 west noble ave.
bushnell, fl 33513-5414
January 15, 2002
[[Page 25493]]
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Richard Rizzo
MTC-00011732
From: Deborah Eaton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Deborah Eaton
100 Hickory Lane
Scottsville, KY 42164
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Deborah Eaton
MTC-00011733
From: Charles Palmer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Palmer
225 Capstan Drive
Placida, FL 33946-2221
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charles Palmer
MTC-00011734
From: Rosaline VanNess
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosaline VanNess
8505 Hanford Drive
Richmond, VA 23229-4719
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Rosaline B VanNess
MTC-00011735
From: Laurie Grizzard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Laurie Grizzard
2967 Mt. Pleasant Rd.
Franklin, GA 30217
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tim and Laurie Grizzard
MTC-00011736
From: Norm Donaldson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norm Donaldson
697 Carr Ave
Aromas, CA 95004
January 15, 2002
[[Page 25494]]
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Norm Donaldson
MTC-00011737
From: Wyonia R Farner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wyonia R Farner
8426 Sunview Drive
El Cajon, Ca 92021-1627
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wyonia R Farner
MTC-00011738
From: ANTHONY THOMPSON
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ANTHONY THOMPSON
4801 ASHLEY TERRACE
MIDDLETOWN , OH 45042
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY E. THOMPSON
MTC-00011739
From: Sandi Fowler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandi Fowler
6437 Longmont tr;
Fort Worth, TX 76179-3715
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sandi Fowler
MTC-00011740
From: Wendy Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wendy Johnson
7875 Valencia Court
Highland, CA 92346-5753
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wendy L. Johnson
MTC-00011741
From: T. Mack Jennings
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
T. Mack Jennings
408 Lee St.
[[Page 25495]]
Sulphur Springs, TX 75482-4349
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
T. Mack Jennings
MTC-00011742
From: Jocelynn Bailey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jocelynn Bailey
13309 Sturno Drive
Clifton, VA 20124-0957
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jocelynn Bailey
MTC-00011743
From: Tamey Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tamey Johnson
4230 County Road 633
Clanton, AL 35045
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tamey Johnson
MTC-00011744
From: Connie Marthinsen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Connie Marthinsen
202 Sarazen Meadow Way
Cary, NC 27513
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Connie Marthinsen
MTC-00011745
From: stanley kimmel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is anti-American that you took action against Microsoft for
their ability to do an excellent job of developing and selling their
products. You should make every effort to settle and go about your
business of prosecuting law breakers.
Stanley Kimmel
Box 23093
Anchorage, KY 40223
MTC-00011746
From: William E. Gabel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William E. Gabel
2140 North Parkway Drive
Upper Arlington, OH 43221
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick
[[Page 25496]]
the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
William E. Gabel
MTC-00011747
From: Francis M. Perry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis M. Perry
2005 S. Berry's Chapel Road
Franklin, TN 37069
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Francis M. Perry
MTC-00011748
From: Linda Schlange
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Schlange
27395 Cypress Street
Highland, CA 92346-3715
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Linda L. Schlange
MTC-00011749
From: Emilia Neudorff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Emilia Neudorff
7806 Jason Ave.
West HIlls, CA 91304-4434
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Emilia Neudorff
MTC-00011750
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
Please count my opinion as being in support of Matthew Szulik,
CEO of Red Hat. I have looked over the PFJ and feel it is seriously
lacking in action against one of the richest, sleaziest corporations
in the world.
I would very much like to see the further actions that Mathew
has proposed be taken into consideration and integrated into the
Final Judgement. I believe that Microsoft should fund the
advancement of alternative software and other operating systems
(Macintosh and Linux) for a period of time to convey the message
that you cannot use illegal methods to hold down your competition
and suffocate free speech and free code.
Sincerely,
A concerned computer user.
MTC-00011751
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that Microsoft Corporation is a first rate,
first class company and the courts and justice system should stop
penalizing it. They have been most generous in their settlement
offers and contributions to schools. If other companies can't
compete, it is not the fault of Microsoft. They can stop whining.
The remaining states in litigation are just trying to grab some
``free'' money and this should be discouraged. America should be
proud of Microsoft and free it of all the legal entanglements! It
stands for what USA capitalism is all about!
Ann Mitcham
(not connected in any way with Microsoft Corp.--don't even own
any stock.)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011752
From: Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:08pm
Subject: Settlement agreement
Please see the attached letter regarding the pending Microsoft
agreement.
John I. Schuler
269 Glenbrook Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-5303
15 January 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
After three long years of legal wrangling the Microsoft
antitrust case has finally seen an opportunity for resolution in the
settlement reached last November. A continuation of litigation, such
that Microsoft's competitors are now strongly lobbying for, will
simply not benefit anyone but their competition, and thus will prove
to be counter-productive for America.
The current settlement offers much of which that the government
and competing companies should be satisfied. It allows free access
to Microsoft's source code and interfaces that are internal to
Windows operating system products. Additionally, Microsoft is
obligated to design future versions of Windows to make it easier on
consumers, manufacturers, and software developers to promote non-
Microsoft
[[Page 25497]]
applications. This, in addition to many other restrictions
and obligations, will be verified by a Technical Committee to ensure
Microsoft's compliance.
It appears to me that this settlement is the best way to put an
end to this matter once and for all. I strongly urge to work towards
the immediate resolution of this case. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
John J. Schuler
John J. Schuler
CC: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00011753
From: Jean Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
To whom it may concern,
I think it is about time that this gets settled for the good of
the country and all it's citizens. I feel that who ever it is that
is trying to do this to a good and inovative country is just plain
stupid. Without Microsoft I hat to think where we would be.It is a
terriable thing to think that someone wants to destroy a good
thing.Just because they have some smart inovative people that are
capable of doing such things should make us proud not want to
destroy what is good.
Sincerely
Jean N. Smith
MTC-00011754
From: Joan Nims Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:09pm
Subject: litigation
considering the damage already done to the economy it is
extremely doubtful that further pursuit of litigation benifits
anyone with the possible exception of a few who hope to gain
political advantage. Isn't it long since time to stop the
foolishness and get on with the work of this country.
MTC-00011755
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
After reviewing the settlement between the Department of Justice
and Microsoft, I am of the opinion that this should move forward. It
is not in the best interest of all parties to have this drag out any
further. The settlement is Reasonable and Fair to all parties.
There appears to bigger issues that the Department needs to
address at this time.
Thank you for your attention on this matter.
J. C. Hart
10821 East 25 Ave.
Spokane WA 99206
MTC-00011756
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
IT IS CLEAR TO ALL EXCEPT WANNABE POLITICOS IN THE PERSON OF
STATE ATTY GENS (9) THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE SETTLED PROMPTLY. THE
DAMAGE DONE TO THE ECONOMY IN THE QUEST TO PUNISH SUCCESS MUST BE
CURBED. DO JUSTICE FOR THE NATION AND SETTLE THIS CASE THAT SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
REX R. MALSON
189 SHERWOOD DR
BRANSON, MO 65616
MTC-00011757
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that this settlement is fair and just, for a couple of
reasons.
1. I do not believe this trial should have gone as far as it
has. Every business and person has the choice of Operating system. I
could get a Macintosh, I could load Unix or I could use a free
version of Linux. The reason Microsoft has such a hold on the
Computer OS and Software industry is because they come out with not
neccessarily the best OS, but the best OS as a package, including
support, the amount of Software available, and people knowledgeable
in the product.
2. This settlement will bring new technology to schools that
currently have 3 year old computers and Software
Sincerely,
Terry L. Read
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011758
From: Betsy Brinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am Josephine Average Consumer and a taxpayer. To date, I still
don't understand why my tax dollars are being spent to sue a
legitimate business for being successful. I further don't understand
why once a settlement is proposed nine states can hold up the
process of getting on with life. I have sat back in awe and watched
the tobacco growers being subsidized by the government to grow a
produce which is then sold to the tobacco companies to produce a
legal product that is sold to folks, with a huge tax collected by
the government, and then having the government sue the tobacco
companies because people choose to use a legal product that is not
good for their health. The frosting on the cake is where the
government then turns around and takes the money from the tobacco
companies and uses it for general fund purposes, not related to
health issues stemming from the use of tobacco. I am having a strong
sense of deja vue with the Microsoft case. Undoubtedly the fact that
some of my retirement is tied up in Microsoft stock biases my view.
However, as I see it, the case needs to be settled so that Microsoft
can get back to creating more innovations that do nothing but
improve my life and as I understand it from the general media the
proposed settlement seems to meet everyone's needs.
Betty Brinson, J.D.
W.S.B.A. #12190
1811 ``C'' Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
MTC-00011759
From: Mary Ann Censky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:59pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I would like to encourage all parties involved in the settlement
negotiations to do everything in their power to come to full
agreement on all remaining issues. I personally feel the downtown in
the economy, which started declining about the time the government
started their antitrust proceedings, is in large part due to the
uncertainty created by the Government's pursuit of Microsoft over
the last couple of years. Microsoft has done tremendous good for
individual consumers, for business and for our overall economy.
Claims that the consumer has been hurt are ludicrous--I belive there
are very few consumers who believe this. If Microsoft's competitors
developed comparable products and marketed them in the outstanding
manner Microsoft has, then these antitrust pursuits would not have
been necessary. I applaud the Federal Government's efforts in
reaching a settlement and hope the remaining few states will see the
wisdom in reaching a quick resolution of all remaining issues.
Please everyone, let's put our Government resources where most
needed--fighting domestic and international terroism and bringing
our economy out of the recession--and let Microsoft keep developing
their great products that allow individual consumers and small and
large business to suceed in their endeavors. It's appalling to think
about how much money has been spent on these legal proceedings--
let's end it now. If I were a taxpayer in the remaining states that
haven't settled, I would be beyond furious.
Thank you for your consideration of my feelings on this subject.
Mary Ann Censky
2731--77th Avenue SE--# 206
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Phone: 206-624-1695
Fax: 206-624-1795
MTC-00011760
From: Duane Dier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 3:58pm
Subject: DoJ
The department of Justice should immediately settle the
Microsolf case, that never really was a case anyway, but rather, a
governmental vendetta, birthed by greedy jealous competitors, and
picked up by opportunistic politicians looking for the next
corporation to raid. Remember the old saying ``when you rob peter to
pay Paul, Paul is always on your side''. this is what this amounts
to political extortion of a company that has helped free the world.
Go Microsolt, and I do not own stock, and No one I know works for
the company.
Duane Dier,
Seattle, Wa
MTC-00011761
From: Bob Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Yes, please settle the lawsuit with Microsoft. I agree with the
current terms
[[Page 25498]]
agreed upon by the parties involved. I believe that it
is to this country's interest to allow Microsoft to focus on its
core business instead of wasting money and resources on lawsuits
such as this.
Thank you.
Bob Quinn
The VB Applications Group
25038 SE 40th Drive
Issaquah, WA
mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
(425) 313-1013
MTC-00011762
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:14pm
Subject: Settle it
As far as I am concerned the states that are holding out are
doing it in either career enhancement on the part of the attorney
generals there or they are function more as lobbyists for their in
state high tech corporations and probably should have withdrawn
themselves because of their bias. I don't feel ANYTHING put on the
table would satisfy them short of Microsoft relinquishing total
control of itself to them. This ends up being more like reverse
monopoly stuff like reverse discrimination!
Ron Walken
Seattle, Wa
MTC-00011763
From: Jack Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the current Microsoft Settlement is fair and
appropriate. I think that it would be a HUGE mistake to punish
further this company.
As someone who travels a great deal, I find it tremendously
helpful to sit down at a computer in whatever country I'm in and
find a Windows environment with which I am comfortable and which I
can immediately use. Any settlement that reduces Microsoft's
influence in maintaining consistency in worldwide computer operating
systems would be a serious blow to international business and
education.
Jack Henderson
Phippsburg, Maine
MTC-00011764
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:15pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
My opinion is, to settle the Action as soon as possible. This
will be good to our Economy and provide more Stability to the
Market. We do not need war within our Country.
Juergen Brunke
MTC-00011765
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement is fair and should be approved.
Microsoft is a great company and should be allowed to continue
without having this case going on forever. This is good for the
economy and for America.
As a consumer I am happy with this settlement and with most of
Microsoft products. If I like another product Microsoft does not
keep me from using it.
Thank You
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011766
From: Woody Tweed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:16pm
Subject: opinion
Lets put this behind us and let the economy go forward. The
whole case should have been thrown out of court.
Woody Tweed
Linn Creek Mo. 65052
MTC-00011767
From: 432kabl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dept. of Justice:
It is long past time to end the government attacks on Microsoft.
The dominance of the computer industry that Microsoft has
unquestionably attained is primarily the result of serving the needs
of computer users better than any other company. Microsoft has made
immense contributions to the rising prouctivity that is the primary
source of our exceptional prosperity in recent years. That kind of
innovation is the main hope for restoring prosperity after the
current recession.
The last thing our government should be doing is attacking and
penalizing innovation. In the interest of all computer users, please
just find a graceful way to bring all of the threatened litigation
and regulatory harrassment to an early conclusion. This would send a
strong message that creativity and resourcefulness are still
encouraged in the United States; not punished.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brad Naegle
(Small business owner)
MTC-00011768
From: Jerry Stump
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone.
I so much appreciate their software; Microsoft is my friend. I
despise Apple.
Let us get on with other more important items and let this great
company Microsoft continue to innovate.
Jerry Stump
1109 20th Street
Belleville, KS 66935
MTC-00011769
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:16pm
Subject: Breakup the Monopoly --
I feel MS should be made an example of for it's arrogance.
Knowing they could fund a longer court battle than most foreign
governments, the delays and non-disclosure of meetings with Federal
officials cleary shows the reason for the court's rejection of the
proposed settlement.
MS should be fined with the largest fine in US history, after
all they are the richest US company in history. They should also be
required to allow the operating systems that are pre-installed in
retail machines to be the choice of the computer manufacturer. So if
Compaq wants to run Linux, UNIX, or even Apple Computer's Mac OS in
their machines.
Nor should pre-bundled software packages be the choice of the
software providers. Consumers who ultimately use these softwares, on
any platform, should be able to choose from a bare-bones
configuration to a fully installed complete suite of softwares, and
from the software manufacturers of OUR choice.
We aren't required to use a certain brand of gasoline in our
cars, nor should we be required to use only one brand of software in
a computer. In example; MS Windows 2000 costs over $500 in Green
Bay, WI and the current MacOS offering has two complete operating
systems for only $130.
This company has shown too many times it's cavalier attitude
about what it can and cannot do, and the victims are the creative
people, the educators and the business users of personal computers.
We are forced to buy computer systems filled with overpriced
softwares that 90% of users will never take advantage of.
So I hope the courts decision will consider the damage caused
our social structure because of this monopolistic practice.
MTC-00011770
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Department of Justice
Sirs, To my opinion the setlement agreed between the parties is
reasonable and will benefit the economy ofd the country and
consumers are happy that such a great organization are backed by
people and the government . This encourages the scientists to
further innovations without fear of government's unnecessary
restrictions.
Ghassem Ladjevardi
Tucson AZ
MTC-00011771
From: Anthony Macaluso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:19pm
Subject: action
WHEN IS OUR TRUSTED GOVERNMENT GOING TO OPEN IT'S EYE'S? AND SEE
THAT WE HAVE GONE DOWN HILL EVER SINCE THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN THIS
ACTION AGAINST ONE OF OUR GREATEST COMPANY'S, THAT HAS COME ALONG IN
MANY YEARS. OUR ECONOMY NEEDS A BOOST NOT A KICK IN THE PANTS AS
THEY HAVE DONE . WHAT A REWARD MR. GATES HAS RECEIVED FOR ALL HIS
EFFORTS TO BRING US AHEAD IN THE WORLD ECONOMY. I HOPE WE LEARNED A
LESSON , THAT PUNISHING A COMPANY OR PERSON'S FOR DOING GOOD WILL
NOT GET US ANY PLACE FAST. PLEASE STOP THIS NEEDLESS
[[Page 25499]]
WASTE OF TAX
PAYER MONEY. YOU HAVE SPEND MORE TIME AND MONEY TRYING TO BRING THIS
COMPANY TO IT'S KNEES, AND LOOK WHAT IT HAS DONE TO US.
MR. ANTHONY MACALUSO
MTC-00011772
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:20pm
Subject: Settlements For Microsoft
Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft:
Microsoft was a treasure of this country for the twenty century,
and will also be for the next century. Without the Microsoft's high
tech contributions during the last twenty years, this country could
well be behind Japan, Britain in the competition of the computer
technologies. Consumers benifit from the Microsoft's products.
The settlement between DOJ and Microsoft should be done as soon
as possible. Otherwise, our economy will continues to suffer.
Those nine states want to continue litigation are not the public
best interests nor good for the economy. They should also accept the
terms of settlements that agree between DOJ and Microsoft.
Thank you for your time>
Sincerely,
Min Hue Lu
Computer Scientist
MTC-00011773
From: Louis DeVito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
I think i is time for everyone to wake up and stop trying to
beat a dead horse. The amount of money and time spent on trying to
squeeze another dollar out of Microsoft is just so stupid. There is
a reasonable settlement on the table, a settlement that was put
together by some very wise people with very sincere motives who
wanted to move on rather than spend the rest of their lives
litigating. Courts are to resolve problems, not find a way for
simpletons to waste their lives on de minimus petty schemes. The
courts should force a settlement which for all intensive purposes
appears reasonable.
MTC-00011774
From: Mary Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am sending this message to register my strong opinion that the
Microsoft case should be settled now and that no more public time,
energy or money should be expended in the pursuit of the case.
As a resident of Connecticut I especially deplore the dogged
efforts of the Attorney General of Connecticut to depict Microsoft
and Bill Gates as Public Enemy Number One.
Surely he and the other attorneys general must have true
criminals to pursue. Innovation and energetic enterprise like that
of Gates/Microsoft are part of what has made this country the power
it is.
``Enough already!''
Mary-Leggett Browning Waterford, CT
MTC-00011775
From: K Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:21pm
Subject: Department of Justice seeks public comment
The Microsoft law suit is dragging on when a fair settlement has
been negotiated. It seems that states just want more money. Let's
get it over with. This is not good for the country.
Kevin Ward
MTC-00011776
From: Mark Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I think it is important to end the law suit and get on with
life. Enough is enough. The Attorney Generals pursuing this case are
self serving.
Thank you for reading this.
Mark Jorgensen
MTC-00011777
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the anti trust case with Microsoft should be settled. I
believe the unsettled case is a negative on our economy.
Ralph Trimble
Findlay, OH
MTC-00011778
From: Susan Barbetti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Please, settle the Microsoft case as is. It should not go into
futher litigation. The Settlement is fair and very generous and it
will help thousands of children. Those that don't want to see this
case settled are furthering a case of ``sour grapes''.
Thank you for accepting my comments.
Susan Barbetti
30120 N. 65th St.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
MTC-00011779
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
IT IS TIME TO GET OFF MICROSOFT'S BACK. THIS STARTED BACK WHEN
BILL CLINTON WAS TRYING ANYTHING TO GET THE ATTENTION OFF OF HIM,
SINCE THEN THE STOCK MARKET AND THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN IN DECLINE.
THIS WILL PROBABLY END UP LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THE GOVERNMENT
HAS TRIED TO FIX THAT WASN'T BROKEN, SUCH AS THE DEREGULATION OF THE
TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICE. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE TELEPHONE COSTS
HAVE GONE UP QUITE A BIT SINCE THE SO CALLED FIX AND CALIFORNIA HAD
A ROUGH TIME WITH POWER SINCE THAT ``FIX'' WAS PUT IN.
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS HAVE ALWAYS HAD A REASONABLE PRICE AND ARE
SOME OF THE BEST ON THE MARKET. THE STATES THAT DON'T WANT TO SETTLE
ARE ONLY LOOKING OUT FOR COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THEIR STATES THAT
CAN'T MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT HELP AND THESE COMPANIES ARE
PROBABLY KICKING IN A LOT OF MONEY TO THE CAMPAIGN FUNDS OF THESE
POLITICIANS.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT EVERYBODY WAS TRYING TO ``BUILD A BETTER
MOUSETRAP'', APPARENTLY THESE OTHER COMPANIES WANTED TO WAIT FOR
MICROSOFT TO BUILD IT AND THEN TRY TO STEAL IT WITH THE HELP OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
MTC-00011780
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The whole case was mainly initiated by some companies can not
effectively compete in market. Every actions Microsoft is accused
of, such as give away products, boundle products, discount for
volumn venders, are common practice of IT industry. All other
businesses, including those joined in the case in suing MS(Netscape,
Sun, Oracle, AOL), have taken those actions, the only difference is
they could not do it better.
It is time to close this case, let government get out of the
marketplace, and let consumers to vote with their own money. In long
run, if MS is guilty, the marketplace will punish it.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011781
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:27pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement with the States' Attornies
General.
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to express my opinion on the settlement of the
Microsoft case. It's inappropriate that these proceedings are
continued. As a user of Microsoft at not only at home but also at
work. I can do my daily tasks with a great deal of concentration on
the task at hand versus having to worrying through the ``how to do''
feat.
My wife had taught many Unemployed persons as an Adjunct
Professor at Drexel University for a few years. The money was put
into this activity, with the intent of preparing the Student to have
the necessary Software to qualify for a job. Most Students had
little trouble learning the MS Word, Excel, Access, and Outlook.
The fact that most of the American (and possibly most of the
World's) Commerce run so profitably and easily is that there is a
commonality of Software Tools, made possible by Microsoft. The ease
of operation has allowed these Students, the Unemployed, to get
those jobs in that they came with the necessary tools which
permitted them to begin earning their keep. They had the
[[Page 25500]]
confidence to spend their time over several months
at 2-3 nights a week knowing
that their efforts were not in vain. Why? American employers run on
Microsoft! And they were prepared. high time that this case be
ended.
This lawsuit has dragged on and wasted a great deal of time and
(our Taxpayer) money in the process. Microsoft has changed the
entire computer industry, giving consumers and businesses superior
products. Their operating system enabled a great compatibility that
has not been offered by any other company. Why would anyone want to
switch to another system and other software that doesn't even work
with one another?
I worked for five major companies as an Electrical Engineer and
Manager/Vice President, using Microsoft in some way or another in
all of my jobs. Microsoft products allowed me to concentrate on
``What'', not ``How''. Microsoft is being punished for creating
innovative technologies that have changed our computer industry, our
business practices, our economic practices and even our methods of
government forever. Just look at the simplification that the IRS has
enjoyed now that Tax Returns can and are filed electronically (45
Million 2000 Federal returns at last count). Microsoft's efforts
should be rewarded, not penalized.
.Think about how difficult it would be for you and those in your
family to surf the Net, send Letters to the Editor, check their Bank
Statement, pay their Bills, and even check the Weather without a
ubiquitous and uniform means of communication. Just trying to change
from Apple (Java) to an IBM, or other (Microsoft) computer. It's a
waste.
This is analogous to the early problems of selecting between a
Beta or a VCS Videotape system. We all use the VCS now. There was no
government intervention. The people, the Buyers chose the better
system. Did that selection prevent other bright Engineers from now
offering CD's and DVD players? No! That's progress.
The proposed settlement is quite equitable for all parties. As I
understand: Microsoft is conceding a great deal in order to move on.
They are giving away some of their coding and interface design to
competing software developers, as well as protocols for their server
systems. They have also agreed not to enter into any contracts
obligating third party distribution of Windows. Should any problems
arise, the Technical Oversight Committee would make sure that
Microsoft complies with the terms of the settlement, further
ensuring fair competition. I for one, urge that the proposed
settlement be upheld.
God Bless America and protect our Troops!
Sincerely,
Phillip M.Connaught
1409 Chancellor Circle
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00011782
From: SteveGertsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I think the case should be settled the way the DOJ and Microsoft
agreed upon. Get it done and let us get back to our business.
Steve Gertsch
[email protected]
http://www.pindersoft.com
MTC-00011783
From: Steve Chittenden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Thank-you for requesting input from citizens of this country. I
believe that Microsoft has paid the price of any misgivings they
have done. It is time that all states and Department of Justice
settle this matter and get on with the work at hand. Thank-you again
for the opportunity to respond. In His Service,
Steve Chittenden
MTC-00011784
From: Swauger, Fred
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft anti trust suit
Agreed settlement is more than fair where would we be w/o
windows the cosumer was not harmed who did the suit protect?
Frederic Swauger
(503) 639-2311, (503) 639-2312(Fax)
MTC-00011785
From: RON LITTLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement this needs to be settled now !!
MTC-00011786
From: larry novak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft law suit
Dear Sirs;
I believe we have held this company up in the air not allowing
microsoft to do what it does best, give us next products that will
move this economy foreward.
The entire country is on hold waiting for these state lawyers to
cut up the pie for their state and most of all for their own gain. .
Enough, get this ended and send the beggars out of the chambers.
Lawrence Novak
MTC-00011787
From: Jun Zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I oppose the settlement because I don't believe it is in the
public interest to do so. The monopoly power of Microsoft will not
change, nor will its practice, given their strategy of always moving
one step ahead and rendering court judgment irrelevant due to the
lag introduced by litigation.
Jun Zhang
Associate Professor
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
MTC-00011788
From: Kayani, Dr. Sohail
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.'
Date: 1/15/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
The purpose of a settlement should be fair to parties concerned
and this settlement is in line with that. However, certain states
that primarily include Microsoft's competitors, will like to use the
opportunity to do as much harm as they can in the name of an open
platform. If their products are good, the market would embrace them.
It seems a proxy fight for Sun, Apple and Oracle that these states
are trying to fight. The intention of the Attorney General of these
states would be considered neutral if they had publicly disclosed
the absence of any financial backing by these companies to their
election campaign.
Sohail Kayani, MD
322 Saybrook Road
Orange, CT 06477
MTC-00011789
From: Doris J. Lafferty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle and end litigation . It has been too long and too
distructive.
Doris J. Lafferty and Walter E. Lafferty
MTC-00011790
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
Microsoft has done more than any other company to grow the
computer industry. Before Microsoft computers were marketed to large
institutions. Microsoft has brought the computer into homes world
wide. They have done this by making computers easy to use for the
general population and marketing products that we want. Microsoft
has done their homework and they have received an A+. This is not
according to me but according to the consumers who have purchased
their products.
For the good of the industry, settle the lawsuit and allow the
computer market to grow again. When Microsoft starts making products
that the public doesn't want or makes products that don't work, the
market will run from Microsoft. When other companies start making
better products than Microsoft, the market will run to them. IBM was
once the computer leader but they didn't have the vision or the
product line that the general public wanted. Today, Dell is
capturing the market share of the the PC market. Dell is getting it
by making an affordable, reliable product. Microsoft has done the
same thing, they created a good product and made it affordable. They
need to take their lumps but let the market give it to them.
Settle the lawsuit.
Mick Stoffel
MTC-00011791
From: bearflat(a)jps.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:32pm
Subject: (no subject)
please settle in microsoft's favor.
shirley ross
[[Page 25501]]
MTC-00011792
From: Stu Sjouwerman
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 4:40pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
It's time to get this over with! The U.S. government should not
be used as a competitive weapon.
Warm regards,
MTC-00011793
From: Bob Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
I am in favor of the settlement reached with Microsoft in the
Anti-Trust case. Please stop wasting taxpayer money. Consumers were
not harmed.
Sincerely
Robert Longariello
Taxpayer and Citizen
[email protected]
MTC-00011794
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please move forward with the Microsoft settlement. The lack of a
settlement is destructive to all of our businesses. When you think
of the legal wrangling and the lack of focus inherent in a situation
such as this, it is apparent that the real losers are the smaller
companies and consumers.
As a business owner, I want Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, etc. .
concentrating on improving their products and services rather than
attending to legal needs that ultimately help no one other than the
legal profession.
Thak you,
Fred West
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011795
From: Frank/Chris Pizzeri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have reviewed the anti trust settlement and both my wife and I
believe it is just. Please conclude this action now. Continuing the
pursuit of this matter will be unlikely to serve justice. Those who
would be served by furtherance may achieve some small gains for
their cause at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.
The law of ``unintended consequences'' has had a great negative
affect on the american public through a lack of confidence.
So ``ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!''
Frank & Chris Pizzeri
Stuart, Fl
MTC-00011796
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the Microsoft settlement as proposed earlier.
Let's stop fooling around and get down to business.
Leo Hojnicki
MTC-00011797
From: Potter, Bob Ext.1411
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm begging you--Please get of Microsoft's back. You have had
your viewpoint skewed by competitors of Microsoft that could not win
in the market place so they are using you to get their way. Don't be
used. The business world is not a philanthropic organization. It is
market driven. Microsoft has won in the market place. Lets get on
with life!!!
Regards,
Bob Potter
(831) 796-1411
www.co.monterey.ca.us
MTC-00011798
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's end this and stop wasting more taxpayer dollars. The
computer industry changes so fast that Microsoft will have to adapt,
or be left in the cold. Please accept the recent setelement, and
let's get back to work.
Greg Olson
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011799
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets have a settlement ASAP and get on with life.
MTC-00011800
From: Tjack1931
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02 10:56pm
Subject: Re Antitrust Microsoft
Dear Justice Department I would like to voice my Opinion on the
Antitrust settlement with Microsoft. I think as a Taxpayer and Voter
it is about time that this nonsense suit is put to sleep. The people
that Originally brought this suit in the first place are expanding
and Monopolizing more than Microsoft ever has.(AOL-Time Warner) Sun
Microsystems) etc.I think that Microsoft has done so much for us
beginner computer users, and still do.
Sincerely
Helga Jackson
4318 So 325th St.
Auburn, WA 98001
[email protected]
MTC-00011801
From: James Plummer
To: mailto:[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My input to this long delayed settlement, is to accept the plan
which was and is acceptable to so large a percentage of the
population. Let's get it settled as part of the country's effort to
get the economy going.
Thankyou.
James W. Plummer,
2129 Quail Poiint Ct.
Medford, Or 97504
MTC-00011802
From: kenneth goff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets get this settled, Microsoft has done more for the computer
than anyone. They don't deserve this kind of treatment.
MTC-00011803
From: Edens, Jim
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Any further modification of this settlement is
just an attempt by inept competitors to gain an advantage in the
marketplace. If Microsoft's products were not valuable the market
would not reward Microsoft with business. Those states that are
opting out of the settlement and working to pursue their own
lawsuits are spending the public's money unwisely and are looking
for a scapegoat and a free handout.
Jim Edens
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
- QUOTE OF THE DAY -``The true meaning of life is to plant
trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.''--Nelson
Henderson
MTC-00011804
From: Lee and Helen DeGroff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I feel the settlement is fair and equitable and the states that
have not accepted it are not being fair to us, the consumer. Please
let my voice be heard. Helen B. DeGroff
MTC-00011805
From: Charles, Robert F
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I say ``Enough is enough is enough!'' I feel Microsoft has
endured more than any company has endured for this Antitrust
litigation. As I stated in an earlier EMAIL to your office, these
Anti Trust laws were designed to protect consumers--NOT COMPETITORS!
After all, look who has brought Microsoft's alleged misgivings to
light. Competitors!
I do thank the DOJ for looking out for my best interests;
however, I have yet to hear a consumer say anything derogatory about
the products that Microsoft sells. Please give Microsoft a fair
ruling. . . .
Enough is enough is enough. Let Microsoft get back what it does
best; serving the customer/consumer with new innovative exciting
products that make the world a better place--not stepping aside so
that second rate products can cheapen the American way of life.
Please rule in favor of Microsoft.
Sincerely, Rob Charles
Robert F. Charles
Global Automotive Americas North
RF Project Reliability Engineer
tyco Electronics /AMP Incorporated
[[Page 25502]]
*(336) 727-5847 *(336) 727-5068
*[email protected]
*Mail Stop 079-12
PO Box 55
3800 Reidsville Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27102-0055
MTC-00011806
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The original reasons driving the settlement no longer are valid.
The industry and the forces driving it have changed too much. We
slapped Microsoft's hands and they listened. I believe, of all of
the companies that will be watched and scrutinized, Microsoft is at
the top. They can not afford to mess up. They have their mandate and
I firmly believe they will stick by it.
I have been dealing with Microsoft for over a decade and have
given them more personal information than any other company. It
never has been abused and I trust them explicitly when they say it
will not be given out or sold. Granted, they were bullish five or so
years ago. They absolutely have changed and are sincere in their
efforts to remedy how they conduct business. I like what they have
to offer and it would hurt my business dramatically if they had to
break up or stop making their products. Breaking up the company
would hurt the American economy more than it would resolve anything.
Think of the impact on the thousands of other companies that rely on
the Microsoft platform for what they do and how they live. Microsoft
is one of the few innovators left in the industry. I like that. That
is why they spend billions of dollars in research each year ? to
bring us new and creative solutions that keep our economy flowing.
There also is no technical way that providing source code would
work. It changes too fast and it would do more harm than good for
the world to make broken derivatives from it. They provide more pre-
release documentation, technology strategies, sample code, training,
and seminars than any other company out there. The only reason
competitors want their source is because they cannot figure out how
to do it themselves.
Stop wasting our money and get on with spending it on more
important things. The only people that care are the press, media,
and politicians that want to get re elected. There are too many
other problems facing the nation right now and this just drains the
scarce resources we don?t have. Microsoft can afford to keep those
states tied up for longer than they can afford to keep plugging away
on a loosing battle going. Take Microsoft's offer and run with it.
It all will work out in the end because we will not let it happen
any other way.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011807
From: Paul Lingham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:46pm
Paul Lingham
47 Bird Grove
Stokes Valley
Lower Hutt
Wellington
Phone 049735747
Mobile 0212586580
MTC-00011807--0001
I'd like to think that this is a good middle-of-the-road set of
suggestions. I don't side with ABMers much like I don't side with
NMBers. I just want a better computing environment.
Here's what I'd like:
1. Force Microsoft to adopt a file format for all Office
applications and PUBLISH their spec. Note that I am not asking for
the publication of the source code of Office, simply the description
of the file formats used.
This way, people can use other Office suites (PerfectOffice,
SmartSuite, StarOffice) without wondering if the files created will
load properly in Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. . . Just this would
open up some competition in the Office Suite market.
2. Force Microsoft to publish every single API in Windows.
Again, I am not asking for the publication of the windows source
code, but simply to the Application Programming Interface. This
would have two benefits: It would make sure that every service,
every facility is clearly exposed for use while at the same time,
removing the cloud of suspicion that Microsoft has some secret APIs
that make their applications work better than others.
3. Muzzle the Microsoft FUD division. This is by far the most
irritating aspect of Microsoft as a business entity. They generate
FUD and make belive that other competing products are not good while
it's far from the case. Feel free to select your example, there are
tons of them out there.
4. Forbid them to use the words ``innovate'' and ``innovation''
unless they can specifically show that they are the first-movers for
the particular product they are advertising. Again, there are tons
of examples out there where Microsoft has been only an ``adapter''
as opposed to an ``innovator''
5. Offer a striped-down version of Windows. Just the bare bones
and a text-based browser (like Lynx) for initial download of the
browser of choice. Nothing else built-in, nothing else cobbled
together. A base install should not be more than 20 Megabytes and
should scream on Pentium-class machines.
6. Word the requirements that hefty fines will be leveraged for
non-compliance. Hopefully, this way, we'll have more competition and
a better computing environment. As well, if Microsoft is still
dominant after this, it'll be because they have earned it the good
old-fashioned way and we'll have little if anything to complain
about.
MTC-00011808
From: Carnes Chapin P GS-13 AFOTEC/TSS
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 4:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
As a consumer, I want the government to settle now. Microsoft
has top notch products at ever decreasing prices. Stop wasting my
tax dollars on this insane case. Send a message to the cry babies
like Oracle, Sun etc--if you can't win in the market place--go find
another business to get in.
Patrick Carnes
MTC-00011809
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am pleased to be given the opportunity to comment on the
settlement under the Tunney Act.
Given that both Microsoft and the DOJ have agreed upon terms
that address the concerns of the original complaint, I am all in
favor of proceeding with the settlement.
In all honesty, I never felt Microsoft has harmed consumers,
even though deemed a monopoly. Microsoft has been a key force in
driving the computer industry, and enabled numerous companies
(media, hardware, and software) to grow and thrive. Enough time and
money has been spent on this litigation. Proceed with the
settlement.
Robin Maffeo
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011810
From: wally rasmussen
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please no further litigation. Settle NOW.
MTC-00011811
From: Steve Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:53pm
Subject: anti-trust suit
To Whom It May Concern: Enough already. The liberals have
attacked the economy on several fronts, and the result is the bad
economy we have now and the weak economy we have had for 6 or more
years. Continue with the Microsoft witch hunt and not only is this
an action that does not represent the publics interest at large, but
the NASDAQ and the technology industry as a whole will continue to
suffer! We all can see what the results of that are, but it could
get much worse. Microsoft as a company is not an angel, and they are
not totally innocent. But the settlement is more than fair. More
would be, in my opinion, mean and vindictive. And ultimately very
damaging to everyone except those that might benefit from a shift in
political power, or who might get some gratification for tearing
down someone else's achievement which they envy. End this travesty
of justice now and help the American People get back to work.
Thanks.
Steve Parker
[email protected]
MTC-00011812
From: Gary(u)Withrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I vote for Microsoft in this issue.
MTC-00011813
From: Arlena-Ann B. Neff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft controversey
[[Page 25503]]
I strongly feel that this matter has gone on long enough and
it's time to reach a settlement. Furthermore, I feel that the terms
offered by Microsoft are more than adquate and should be accepted by
the courts and contesting states. It's time to move forward and have
everyone put their efforts in a more fruitful direction, instead of
beating this issue endlessly to death. Let's accept Microsoft's
offer and let the technology world move forward in other more
positive areas.
Arlena Neffl
MTC-00011814
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:52pm
Subject: Anti-trust lawsuit by various states
The States Attorneys General who involved themselves in the
Justice Dept. lawsuit against Microsoft bring nothing to the table.
They are in it for the publicity and because they have nothing to
lose. They are still giddy from the windfall they got from their
tobacco settlement and hope to extort money from Microsoft. I am a
consumer and I have benefitted enormously from the products that
Microsoft has created. These greedy attorneys general should be
thrown out of court. They are contemptible extortionists who deserve
no credibility.
Sincerely,
James A. McGrath
MTC-00011815
From: Robert And Vivian Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello,
We would like to express our support for immediate settlement of
the Microsoft case. We think that the marketplace has proven that
Microsoft is an example of a company that we should support. Their
innovative ways of providing consumers with the best-possible
software choices work. No more litigation!!
Thanks for listening,
Vivian and Robert Weber
MTC-00011816
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:56pm
Subject: Settlement
We fully support Microsoft for a fair settlement which primarily
will benefit consumers maintaining the integrity of an institution
which on the other hand is one of the strogest pillars of the
economy of the United States of America.
Respectfully,
Victor Estaba, M.D. & Carmen Estaba
MTC-00011817
From: Wayne/Eileen Grove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Settle now. without delay.
MTC-00011818
From: beverly wakeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT WAS FAIR AND JUST. BUSINESS'S SHOULD
HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE. THE NINE STATES OPPOSING THE
SETTLEMENT ARE COMPETITORS. MICROSOFT PROVIDES JOBS FOR THOUSANDS.
IT IS TIME YOU SETTLE AND LET ALL INVOLVED MOVE ON.
MTC-00011819
From: JOHN (038) Mary McLauchlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
Many of us are quite upset that the justice system has not
declared a mis-trial in the case against Microsoft who was found
guilty by a judge (Jackson) who has publicly acknowledged that he is
bias when it comes to Microsoft or Bill Gates.
MTC-00011820
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:00pm
Subject: Mark Rourke
Microsoft is a company that has added immeasurably to the
ability of a nonprofit agency, like mine, to keep costs down and do
more with our limited resources. I oppose and measures that would
stifle the success and generosity of Microsoft. I am continually
disheartened at the penalties implemented by the US Justice
Department.
Mark Rourke
Director
Bement Camp and Conference Center
MTC-00011821
From: EMIL (038) BONNIE KELLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs:
I believe that the present arrangement for settlement of the
Microsoft case is fair and should be accepted. We do not need more
litigation.
Emil Keller
11909 Bayswater Rd
Gaithersburg, Md. 20878
MTC-00011823
From: Kenneth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Antitrust Proposal Comments
Comments on settlement proposal http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9400/9495.htm Under Prohibited conduct: Section D: First paragraph.
In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the
disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than
the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware.
The phrase major beta test seems overly vague. I suggest
restating it to read: ldquo;shall occur no later than the last test
release released to over 20% of licensees who normally receive test
releases from Microsoft.''
(Commentary: Microsoft could quite easily move from an Alpha/
Beta test cycle to an extended Alpha cycle or simply introduce an
Alpha/Beta/Gamma or some new totally orthogonal process which would
render the entire paragraph useless.)
Section G: Third paragraph, that prohibits such entity from
competing with the object of the joint venture or other arrangement
for a reasonable period of time. The phrase ``for a reasonable
period of time.'' seems vague. I suggest restating it to read:
``for a time period consistent with industry practices.''
Section H: Says ``provided that the technical reasons are
described in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that requests
them.''
This phrase appears to allow Microsoft to develop hidden APIs
and features, release them and then claim that no one else supports
them and then only provide the documentation to an ISV that
specifically requests it etc.
I suggest restating it to read:
``provided that the technical reasons are clearly described in
existing documentation released under the guidelines of this order''
Section J: ``disclosure of which would compromise the security''
As all of the products described are security products and as the
term security is continually mis and reinterpreted (Microsoft itself
being a large infractor).
I suggest restating it to read:
``disclosure of which would compromise the effectiveness''
Kenneth Kron (CTO)
Last modified: Tue Jan 15 13:59:37 PST 2002
MTC-00011824
From: John Garrison, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I retired three years ago after over 40 years in the information
technology field with the last 32 years in a variety of mid and
upper level management positions. While I personally preferred the
UNIX operating system, I found the Microsoft Windows operating
system was preferred by most of my technical staff and non technical
users as it was easily learned and offered tremendous capability at
a very reasonable price. Based on this experience, I feel it has
been indeed an injustice to Microsoft and the American people that
unworthy competitors has used the political process in an effort to
survive. It is interesting to note that the nine states that have
not agreed to the settlement are states that are home to some of the
companies that simply cannot compete on their own merit. Request the
settlement as agreed to by all but nine states be finalized as is. I
believe the settlement is more than fair to the public interest.
Respectfully submitted:
John E. Garrison, Sr.
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00011825
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:01pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
The proposed settlement proposed by the US Department of Justice
and nine states is,
[[Page 25504]]
in my opinion, inadequate because it doesn't
address the problems that made Microsoft a monopoly in the first
place and the enforcement procedures proposed are insipid.
Microsoft is currently a monopoly because they've engaged in a
repeated practice of bundling ``feature'' software with their
Windows operating system. Since the Windows OS is a monopolistic
operating system, bundling these features is, in effect, predatory
pricing because it drives the other vendors of the feature software
out of business because they can't compete with the features offered
by Microsoft for ``free''. Any remedy intended to fix the antitrust
practices of Microsoft has to address this issue.
Furthermore, having any agreed-upon remedies enforced by a
``Technical Committee'' comprised of members that Microsoft
partially chooses is tantamount to having ``the fox guard the hen
house.'' I believe that if the current settlement is agreed upon it
may lead to certain short-term benefits for consumers, vendors
involved with Microsoft and certain macroeconomic forces in the
world, but I strongly believe that the far more important long-term
benefits of software innovation and real consumer competition in the
computer software, computer security and computer hardware
industries will suffer consequences far greater than any short-term
benefits if the remedies aren't reworked to be effective.
Thank you,
Respectfully,
Jim Dixon
Staff Software Engineer
Enterprise Services
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
9800 Mt. Pyramid Ct. Suite 300
Englewood, CO 80112
Phone: 720/895-3041
Fax: 720/895-1607
E-Mail:
[email protected]
MTC-00011826
From: Bertha Keogh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bertha Keogh
12114 Brookside Ave
Port Charlotte, FL 33981-6727
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Bertha Keogh
MTC-00011827
From: David Carr
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
David Carr
2700 Kent Avenue
West Lafayette, IN 47906
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial was a tremendous waste of taxpayer money and
a impediment to the development of the computer technology sector of
the American economy.
It is time to let the companies innovate and develop new
products to meet peoples' needs.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David Carr
MTC-00011828
From: Janet Kirk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Kirk
2589 Washington Rd.
Pittsburgh, PA 15241
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Janet F. Kirk
MTC-00011829
From: Gary McVey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary McVey
10715 Hillview Dr.
Evansville, IN 47720
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gary P. McVey
MTC-00011830
From: Greg OLSEN
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg OLSEN
9415 Friendsville Road
Seville, OH 44273-9121
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
[[Page 25505]]
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over.
Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Greg OLSEN
MTC-00011831
From: Joanne Ames
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joanne Ames
R.R.#2 Box 515
Gillett, PA 16925
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Joanne Ames
MTC-00011832
From: Wayne Mieth
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wayne Mieth
1050 Merritt Lane
El Cajon, CA 92020
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wayne Mieth
MTC-00011833
From: Kathy Casteel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathy Casteel
4502 State Road E
Auxvasse, MO 65231
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kathy Casteel
MTC-00011834
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Government Persons
My comments on the Microsoft Settlement issue is, I'm afraid,
only pointing out the obvious, however, the fact that the issue is
still in doubt suggests my views should be expressed.
I own no Microsoft stock and don't work for microsoft. I have no
close friends or relations that work for microsoft. I am using an
apple Computer to send this through AOL Internet access. I do use
Microsoft programs.
The fact that two of the states not accepting the settlement are
California and Massachusetts seems to, in itself, show why the issue
is purely political. These two states alone contain many major
Microsoft competitors who have lost business because Microsoft was
just better than they were. Success in our economy should be based
on free market, not on government decree. Microsoft's products have
been better accepted by the free market. Bundled products are indeed
better than a bunch of incompatible products. Apple, Linix, Unix,
etc.s systems are there as options but more people freely choose
Microsoft.
Gerald Steele
506 Susana Ave.
Redondo Beach Ca.
90277
MTC-00011835
From: Paul Burke
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Burke
5569 Turnbull Circle
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into
[[Page 25506]]
the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Paul Burke
MTC-00011836
From: Sandra Weber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Weber
148 Main St.
Sullivan, WI 53178
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sandra Weber
MTC-00011837
From: Charles Guest
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Guest
1506 Clarence
Bossier, La 71111
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Guest
MTC-00011838
From: Nathan Leon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nathan Leon
2905 Colorado Ave
Turlock, CA 95382
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Nathan Leon
MTC-00011839
From: Craig Balter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Craig Balter
220 Chapman
Placentia, Ca 92870
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Craig Balter
MTC-00011840
From: Charles Fisher
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Fisher
7307 N. 13th. St.
Tampa, Fl 33604
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken
[[Page 25506]]
up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charles Fisher
MTC-00011841
From: Edward Poole
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Poole
29 River Bend Park
Lancaster, Pa 17602
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Edward H Poole
MTC-00011842
From: Rex Maxey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rex Maxey
3171 Highway 946
Ezel, KY 41425
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Rex Maxey
MTC-00011843
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The settlement with Microsoft is fair & in the best interests of
the country. All of the remaining state sponsored law suits should
be dropped. It is bad for Microsoft & the USA for them to continue.
R. Di Benedetto
MTC-00011844
From: Dale Best
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dale Best
4156 Ridgeway Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46221-3442
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dale Best
MTC-00011845
From: Joe Orlick
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Orlick
3406A S. Brust Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53207
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Joe Orlick
MTC-00011846
From: Keith Fouts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Fouts
108 N Parkview
Coffeyville, KS 67337-1237
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
[[Page 25508]]
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Keith A. Fouts
MTC-00011848
From: N broidy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
N Broidy
1621 114th
Bellevue, WA 98004
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Neal A. Broidy
MTC-00011849
From: Geof Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the proposed settlement, which in my opinion is
indeed in the public interest. Furthermore, I commend Microsoft for
all that it has done in providing world leadership for this
technology and for essentially creating a world wide standard (or
highway on which every one can drive) on which we are all able to
communicate so effectively.This is very much different than when
microprocessors were commercialized where one companies system could
not communicate with other companies systems causing enormous cost
and inefficiencies and the loss of US technological leadership.
Microsoft's world leadership has financially benefited the
United States and all of its citizens to a far greater degree than
the so called costs outlined by its competitors in the lawsuit.
Lets stop litigating and recommence innovation and advance the
US leadership and dominance of technologies.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey M. Foster.
MTC-00011850
From: Eugene Denbow
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eugene Denbow
8739 Amador Ave
Yucca Valley, Ca 92283
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Eugene & Dorothy Denbow
MTC-00011851
From: Cameron Davis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cameron Davis
123 South Garfield
Junction City, KS 66441
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Cameron E. Davis
MTC-00011852
From: David Mackey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Mackey
1205 North 57th Place
Fort Smith, AR 72904
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken
[[Page 25509]]
up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David Mackey
MTC-00011853
From: Carol Benton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Benton
619 S. Sunshine Ave.
El Cajon, CA 92020-5126
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Carol Benton
MTC-00011854
From: Athena Reizakis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Athena Reizakis
1920 L St NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Athena Reizakis
MTC-00011855
From: Donald Shaw
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Shaw
10816 LaQuinta Dr.
New Port Richey, Fl 34654
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,--Don
Donald W. Shaw
MTC-00011856
From: Keith Farthing
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Farthing
1343 Wyoming St
Dayton, OH 45410
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Keith E Farthing
MTC-00011857
From: Marsha McIntosh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marsha McIntosh
7330 Bock Ave
Stanton, CA 90680-2117
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
[[Page 25510]]
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Marsha McIntosh
MTC-00011858
From: William Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Wright
2509 Thomas Lane
Harlingen, TX 78550
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
William Wright
MTC-00011859
From: Fredda Shutes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fredda Shutes
2117 Island Lake Cr.
Panama City, FL 32405
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Fredda B. Shutes
MTC-00011860
From: Demetris Papageorgiou
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Demetris Papageorgiou
4739 Yuma Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the
[[Page 25511]]
courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Demetris Papageorgiou
MTC-00011861
From: karen richards
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Richards
9036 Tarrington Ln
Franklin, TN 37029
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Karen Richards
MTC-00011862
From: Marla Lewis Oliver
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marla Lewis Oliver
561 Tuscany Valley Court, Unit 3
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Marla Lewis Oliver
MTC-00011863
From: David Fedders
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Fedders
5106 carpenter drive
crestwood, ky 40014
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David G. Fedders
MTC-00011864
From: Alissa Jesle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alissa Jesle
1911 Camino De La Costa, #402
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alissa Jesle
MTC-00011865
From: Theodore E. Caldwell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theodore E. Caldwell
1129 Blackburn Ln
Virginia Beach, VA 23454-1941
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Theodore E. Caldwell
MTC-00011866
From: Patrick Heslin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patrick Heslin
2009 Meadow lark Rd
Spring Hill , FL 34608
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Heslin
MTC-00011867
From: Robert Montgomery
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Montgomery
PO Box 1561
Charlottesville, VA 22902-1561
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be
[[Page 25512]]
over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Montgomery II
MTC-00011868
From: Carole Sigtermans
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carole Sigtermans
105 Schrempp Lane Ext.
Pine Bush, NY 12566
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Carole Sigtermans
MTC-00011869
From: Mario Villanueva
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mario Villanueva
1529 Lassen Way
Frazier Park, Ca 93222-5323
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mario M. Villanueva
MTC-00011870
From: Rebecca Groves
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rebecca Groves
7506 STONE PINE LANE
HOUSTON, TX 77041-1527
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Groves
MTC-00011871
From: Gail Waechter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gail Waechter
5768 US Hwy 77A North
Yoakum, TX 77995-2431
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tim & Gail Waechter
MTC-00011872
From: George Humberson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Humberson
12722 Newbrook
Houston, TX 77072-3815
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time
for this trial, and the
[[Page 25513]]
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
G. Hollis Humberson
MTC-00011873
From: Sheron Willingham
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--
Sheron Willingham
P. O. Box 3430
Pahrump, NV 89041-3430
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered too much of our taxpayers?
dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to
investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial,
and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers
will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally
breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sheron M. Willingham
MTC-00011874
From: Tina Miltner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tina Miltner
700 Airport Blvd. #300
Burlingame, CA 94010-1937
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tina Miltner
MTC-00011875
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:07pm
Subject: (no subject)
Dear sirs. . I feel it is time for the doJ to settle the
MicroSoft case.Bob
Fitzsimmons
MTC-00011876
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The monopoly laws state that harm to the consumer must be
proven. With all that I have read and drawing from my personal
experience (6 years as a CTO), this was NOT proven. The only ones
complaining about Microsoft are those that Microsoft leapfrogged
(not always technologically, but always in mind/market share).
If Microsoft really did use bully-boy tactics in the licensing
practices, I believe they deserve to be slapped down big time. This
in no way implies that the federal government should be overseeing
Microsoft or any other area as to product development, R&D, etc.
Apply appropriate measures for anything illegal Microsoft may
have done, but do not punish the rest of the computing world in the
same stroke.
MTC-00011877
From: Stan Casteel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stan Casteel
4502 State Road E
Auxvasse, MO 65231
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
I would add that many of us don't appreciate the fact that
because most of our 403b accounts contain microsoft, we are being
robbed of our retirement by the trial lawyers. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Stan W. Casteel, DVM, PhD
MTC-00011878
From: Marco DiBiase
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:13pm
Subject: comments
Bill Gatres mistake was in not making contributions to the
Democrats and Clinton. Therefore, they unleashed the Justice Dept on
them. This provides work for the lawyers. The customers get screwed
because the cost of litigation has to be reflected in the price of
the products. This was a politically motivated suit. Throw it out
and move on! Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg!
[email protected]
MTC-00011879
From: Bryce Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Justice Department
Re: Microsoft Settlement
We are writing to let you know that we are strongly in favor of
Microsofts position on the proposed antitrust settlement. It is in
the
[[Page 25514]]
best interest of the country and the economy to resolve this
matter now.
The action of some of the state Attorneys General have resembled
extortion much more than they resemble a reasonable approach to the
issue.
The more the government throttles the rapidly changing high-tech
industries the worse it will be for everyone.
Sincerely,
Dr. Bryce Buchanan
Diana Buchanan
18962 Barton Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
MTC-00011880
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:15pm
Subject: Settlement of suit
It is about time this suit was settled. I sincerely hope
Microsoft will continue to provide the best as it always has in the
past.
Attorney General Blumenthal must cast away his bitterness and
join in supporting the settlement that has been proposed.
Sincerely,
Bob Stauffer
MTC-00011881
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I hope that common sense and reason are used here. The
settlement should be accepted and let the free market do its job.
This trial has been counter productive against the interestes of
anyone with a computer.
Sincerly,
John Davis
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011882
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has contributed significantly to the increase in
productivity enjoyed the world over. That said the only way
Microsoft can continue to grow is through planned operating system
obsilecence and the canibalization of niche software applications.
Microsoft is doing both. It's time to extract the operating
system/business from Microsoft and force it to stand on its own.
Publish the source code of all Windows X O/S's. Therefore providing
open competition and equal access to the latest planned feature
enhancements of Windows X O/S.
Forcing Microsoft to donate $1B worth of WinTel product only
further cements Microsofts' grip on the US economy and the minds of
our children. If you plan to penalize Microsoft financially--get
cash from Microsoft with no strings attached. Invest the money in
business development within the affected states.
However, if the states are not willing to force the separation
of Microsofts' O/S and application business. It's obvious that they
are just in it for a quick revenue hit. Just like the smoking
settlement. What ever the outcome, the buyer of Microsoft products
is sure to eat the cost of litigation and settlement.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011883
From: Ronald Soussa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that the terms of the proposed Microsoft settlement
are in the public's interest and should be approved. Get on with the
settlement and end the litigation.
Thank you.
Ronald S. Soussa, SIOR
Delaware Hudson Realty Group, Inc.
239 New Road, Building A
Parsippany, NJ 07054-4294
Phone (973) 575-6080, Fax (973) 575-4590
[email protected]
www.delawarehudson.com
MTC-00011884
From: Elaine Rearden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
This case should be settled as quickly as possible. . . it's a
diversion to the day by day work and innovation of Microsoft and is
adverse to the well-being of customers who use computers and
computer products. I urge you to get it behind you and get on with
the bright future we have with regard to computer technology.
Elaine Rearden
MTC-00011885
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:18pm
Subject: (no subject)
Please end the litigation against Microsoft. It's been long
enough and I believe that justice has prevailed. Thank you.
MWeber
MTC-00011886
From: rfdpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have no complaints against Microsoft and I feel their proposed
settlement was more than fair and should be accepted.
Richard F Donovan
Columbia SC
MTC-00011887
From: chuckbeatie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please, leave Microsoft alone, and let them get back to
business! Tell those states and the companies that are crying, that
if Microsoft's competition want to catch-up and get ahead that they
need to spend their time writing better code, not crying about how
Microsoft is cornering the market.
This is a free society, and Microsoft's competition can get in
there and compete, quit the crying!
Chuck
MTC-00011888
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am extremely interested in having the anti-trust case against
Microsoft resolved immediately. It appears to me that the main
impetus for this whole matter is based on politics rather than
market dynamics.
Specifically, the states that seem to be resisting settlement
are ones who host some of Microsoft's main competitors. While I
believe that Microsoft has indeed engaged in anti-competitive acts,
namely in the area of restrictive licensing agreements, I fail to
see how Microsoft is a monopoly. The public has always had other
options regarding personal computer operating systems in the form of
SCO Xenix, SCO Unix, MacOS, Geos, and Linux. All of these are viable
operating systems. Microsoft should be rewarded for providing the
product that the vast majority of users want to use, not punished
for it. No one is forced to use Microsoft products. The market has
spoken and it has chosen Microsoft Windows. It seems that the bulk
of the anti-trust case is sour grapes of Microsoft's competitors.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011889
From: Charles Chambers Sr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
when will the government get out of the way and let tech
companies innovate? I am for the settlement as it now exists. The
governments actions to date in perusing this case against Microsoft
has just added to the collapse in the economy. It will be technology
that will bring us out of the poor economy if the government will
just settle this case.
Charles R. Chambers, Sr.
MTC-00011890
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Lawyers:
Please accept the present offer to settle this and lets get the
markets going in a positive direction. We feel that without an
immediate settlement the markets will go further down and the
recession will last longer.
Sincerely Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Pearce
5404 Via Maria,
Yorba Linda, Ca
92886
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00011891
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:26pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
WE URGE THE US DOJ TO RESOLVE THIS CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT AND
GET ON WITH THE MORE SERIOUS MATTERS SUCH AS ENRON. AT NO TIME AND
IN NO WAY HAS MICROSOFT CREATED PROBLEMS FOR THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY.
WITHOUT MICROSOFT, WHERE WOULD THE INDUSTRY BE? INSTEAD OF
PENALIZING A FORWARD THINKING, CREATIVE COMPANY LIKE MICROSOFT,
ENCOURAGE THEIR COMPETENCE! AS
[[Page 25515]]
USERS, WE FEEL THEIR PRODUCTS TO BE
SUPERIOR IN EVERY WAY----THIS KIND OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE REWARDED,
NOT HARASSED. SO, WE REQUEST THAT THIS MATTER BE RESOLVED QUICKLY
AND FINALLY AND LET MICROSOFT DO WHAT IS DOES BEST AND LET THE DOJ
DO WHAT IT DOES BEST AND THAT IS TO GO AFTER REALLY ABUSIVE
COMPANIES LIKE ENRON. BEVERLY AND DALE SCHENDEL
MTC-00011892
From: Ruth Silveira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:24pm
Subject: Back Off
Finally they think they have justly done what they set out to
do. God knows why this was an issue anyway!
Aren't we living in a free country where inventors of all
shapes, sizes, inventions et. make millions every year? We even have
foreign inventors putting their ideas on our consumers.
It seems to me that we could have spent all this time looking
for aliens and the money would have been better spent.
re: The WTC bombing.
Get real go after the bad guys not an American who happened to
enter the market at the right time!
BACK OFF LEAVE MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES ALONE!!!
If it weren't for Microsoft I never would have been able to
learn my computer by myself and send this e-mail!
Thanks,
Ruth Silveira
MTC-00011893
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:28pm
Subject: (no subject)
Settle the matter and stop further waste of money. . . .
GS
MTC-00011894
From: Bud Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is my firm opinion that the US Gov't should accept Judge T.
P. Jackson's ruling in this case in regard to the education
donations. Further suit against Microsoft is counter productive to
the best interests of the people of the USA & the software using
world at large. Rejection of this proposed settlement is not in my
opinion in the best interest of the software world.
Thank you for reconsideration of this matter,
Allen C. Howe II
MTC-00011895
From: Elwin, Michael J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To Whom It May Concern,
The initial settlement that Microsoft made for the schools is
very fair. Alot of those schools have Black students attending and
they have no computers or what they have are very old. As a Black
man from the West Indies living in the United States since 1968 I am
fully aware of what is going on. The administrators in those schools
rejecting the offer just want the money to spend on other things
that will NOT help the students. Also the Apple Computer Company
which has a strong monopoly in the public schools is part of the
rejection process. For once can we stop playing games and do what is
BEST for the students/children. Microsoft is not ripping off the
consumer. I know because I am a consumer of their products. Stop
playing around and let Microsoft help turn the economy around.
Thanks for listening.
Best regards,
Michael J Elwin
Import/Export Compliance
Worldwide Site Operations
Phone:425-957-5729 Fax 425-865-4305
Pager:206-797-0694
M/S 7M-TJ ``Apres Bon Dieu C'est La Terre''Commonwealth of
Dominica.
MTC-00011896
From: Martin Schentes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:33pm
Subject: Settlement
I would like to see this case settled as quickly as possible. It
is taking up too musch of the Justice Department's resources for
what appears to be a dubious outcome that will benefit no one. The
Justice Department could then have time for the real criminals at
Enron.
Martin Schentes
1672 Applefield St
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
MTC-00011897
From: Judi Gibbons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
STOP THE LAWSUIT, SETTLE THE ACTION AS PER THE LAST COURT AND
GET ON WITH LIFE.
MTC-00011898
From: Gerald W. Cusack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--DOJ
Dear Sir:
It is time for these nine state Attorney Generals to agree with
the DOJ. Further confusion, and litigation only adds to an unsettled
business climate and to our current recession. The fact that the
federal government and the other states thought it fair should be
enough. Stop the politics and get the issue resolved. People need
jobs.
Mary and Gerald Cusack
MTC-00011899
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:34pm
Subject: (no subject)
It is time to get on with normal activiies in the new computer
world. Things have changed and we can no longer judge todays
business with the conditions of the past.
The proposed settlement between the plaintif and microsoft is a
fair one and the government should embrace it and move out of the
way.
This segment of the business world is fast and changing.
Move On
MTC-00011900
From: kay in arizona
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We do not understand why the government hasn't put a stop to
this suit. There has been thousands of dollars spent on ligitation
by both parties.
The government is spending our tax money to sue one of the most
successful companies in our nation, who has contributed so much to
the economy here. The suit is based on other technology companies
who are unhappy with the success of Microsoft. .
We are involved in a manufacturing business and we do not
devulge how our product is manufactured, allowing other companies to
make the same thing.
Please allow Microsoft to be the inovative company they have
always been.
Thank you.
Howard & Kay Worden
MTC-00011901
From: Carolyn Emery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is in the best interest of United States citizens
to accept the Microsoft Settlement as outlined by the Department of
Justice.
Carolyn Jill Emery
1124 Garden Circle
Fircrest, WA 98466
MTC-00011902
From: Gary Rosen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
For your information I just received the following email from
ACT. I am sure that Microsoft is funding ACT. As a small software
company who has worked closely with Microsoft and as a consumer in
my opinion Microsoft has been guilty of any number of illegal
activities related to p[rice fixing and illegal trade practices.
Gary Rosen
It's time to get back to work: Your comments can encourage
approval of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case.
Your opinion on the proposed settlement between Microsoft, the
federal government, and nine states is due by January 28, 2002.
Click here to find out more!
http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp>
http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp
Under the Tunney Act, a law that encourages public comment on a
proposed settlement, the trial judge reviews comments to help
determine whether this settlement is in the public interest. All
comments submitted will become part of the public record.
[[Page 25516]]
Helpful information for developing your comments:
http://www.actonline.org/press--room/releases/110501.asp> ACT's
analysis of the proposed settlement
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm#submit> Information
from the U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.actonline.org/press--room/releases/
Senate%20testimony.pdf> ACT's testimony to U.S. Senate
Three ways to submit your comments to Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly:
1. Send a fax to: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
2. Mail a letter. Please note, however, that the Justice
Department strongly encourages that comments be submitted via e-mail
or fax, given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington.
Letter mail should be addressed to:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
3. Send an email. If you send the email on your own, please
address to mailto:[email protected] and use ``Microsoft
Settlement'' as your subject line. Or, see
http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp>
http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp for on-line form
to send your email.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Zuck
President
ACT
MTC-00011903
From: Richard Lowenthal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge in Microsoft Monoply Suit:
Sir: I am just sharing the thoughts of a very senior citizen.
Respectfully,
Richard Lowenthal
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:15:50-0500
From: Richard Blumenthal [email protected]> X-Accept-
Language: en
To: Richard Lowenthal [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft, the monopolist
Richard Lowenthal wrote:
Honorable Gentlemen,
I wish to indicate my support for your position in the case of
Microsoft, the Monopolist. I truly feel, as a very senior citizen,
that I have been taken advantage of, many times because of
Microsoft' position. I have been forced to buy version upgrades, at
exhorbitant prices, when the ``upgrade'' is little more than a
``beta'' version given out to the public for money, and it is the
public's job to find the glitches and notify Microsoft so they can
make changes and sell another upgrade. In reality, they should have
been doing the research and after getting a good product, then
making it available to the public.
How can any of the other Attorneys General resolve this case
when Microsoft is a convicted monopolist? It is my hope that you
will see this case through the courts until justice is done and a
suitable is resolution is found in the courts. I want all to be
equal. I just do not want Microsoft to be MORE EQUAL THAN ANYONE
ELSE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
CORDIALLY,
Richard Lowenthal
Frankfort, MI.
Dear Mr. Lowenthal:
Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning
the Microsoft antitrust case. As you know, on November 6, 2001, the
United States Department of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed
settlement. I did not join that settlement because I do not believe
it would accomplish the goals we set when we filed the case. Nor
would it accomplish the remedial goals set by the U.S. Court of
Appeals: (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in
the future, (2) to spark competition in this industry; and (3) to
deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, as
follows:
Mail: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington, DC, and
current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely mail
service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that comments
be submitted via e-mail or fax.]
E-mail: [email protected]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type ``Microsoft
Settlement.''
Fax : 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General
MTC-00011904
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft case should be settled
Dept. of Justice . In my opinion the Microsoft case should be
settled asap. C0mpetitors seem to be draging it out to their
addvantage. The longer it goes the more it hurts the economy. Please
settle!
Jim Nieukirk.
[email protected]>
MTC-00011905
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:43pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
it is blantantly obvious that this suit should end now. the nine
attorney's general, who are holding out, are only doing this to
force an extreme payoff. one, that i feel they have absolutey no
right to expect. ending this travesty now would help the markets to
go forward.
thank you,
jayne mcgarey
chattanooga, tn.
MTC-00011906
From: cmendenhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a longtime user of Microsoft products beginning with the
early dos program on the Radio Shack TRSDOS machines available
before the floppy was perfected, I feel strongly that the government
should settle the matter with and disallow the continuing harassment
of rogue states. It is obvious that these states want to continue to
keep the computer business environment in a state of upset. Lets
settle the thing and get on with things.
C Mendenhall
MTC-00011907
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:42pm
Subject: Put an end to the litigating
Why are we trying to ruin a company just because they happen to
excel? I think the all the states should join in the settlement and
lets move forward. Hasn't Microsoft been penalized enough? Do we
want to crush them entirely? Where would our economy be without the
vision of Microsoft?
Let's settle and move on.
Lois Teerling
Concerned consumer
MTC-00011908
From: sandra willis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can not believe our government is still trying to 'punish'
Bill Gates and his company. The man has given more to charity than
all the politicians I've ever heard of, combined. He wants to Give
to so many schools now, I'm sorry, I just have no patience with the
ignorance of our government.
MTC-00011909
From: Sandra Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
It is time this Microsoft Antitrust suit is settled. As part of
the general public I feel that it has taken up enough time and we
should get on with other items that need work done on them. Believe
me there is eonugh to keep your Department busy.
As a customer I did not believe that the antitrust suit should
have ever happened. Microsoft provided it customers with a great
product at fair value. It is my understanding that the general
public did not believe in this antitrust suit and that it was done
solely to benefit some Millionaires who could not keep up with
Microsoft.
Please add my opinion that it is time to get this settled and
move on.
Sincerely,
Sandra Kaye Bailey
[[Page 25517]]
MTC-00011910
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:47pm
Subject: (no subject)
As a shareholder of Microsoft and an avid user of Microsoft
products I would like to see that the case be settled as quickly as
possible. For the sake of the faltering economy I can see no reason
to prolong litigation, stifle essential technological progress and
handcuff an industry which the world relies upon. A reasonable
solution to the perceived problems that Microsoft had caused in the
past has already been reached. . . let's get on wifh it.
Enough is enough!!
Alice Petko
MTC-00011911
From: Steve Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The case should be settled now!
The Bryant Design Group & Steve Bryant Const.
P. O. Box 502
Denison, Texas 75021
http://house-plans-and-more.com>
MTC-00011912
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
The proposed settlement of the DOJ case against Microsoft should
be accepted by all parties. The benefits accrued by the public as a
result of Microsoft software integration far exceeds any problems
that may have resulted from Microsoft actions. The actions taken
against Microsoft appear to be largely based on the fact that other
companies could not compete effectively with products that were
provided by Microsoft. Actions taken against Microsoft to date
appear to be far more concerned with the perceived harm of a few
large companies than on any harm caused to the public. In fact, the
public has significantly benefited from the actions of Microsoft
through the availability of integrated software application programs
at a reasonable cost.
Please accept the Microsoft/DOJ proposed settlement without
further delay.
Leo Hansen
MTC-00011913
From: H Tavassolie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
I would like the Department of justice settle the current
agreement ,and not to drug on this conflict for the sake of a few
unhappy states,since we as a majority of united state citizens
believe that continuation of this conflict is against the public
interest.
Sincerely.
MTC-00011914
From: Ron Merchant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:51pm
Subject: Settle the Case
It is imperative that the case against Microsoft be settled
within the framework of the DOJ guidelines. It is apparent that the
nine states are not interested in the economy, shareholders, or the
utilization of governmental resources, paid for by taxpayers, that
would be far better utilized in other venues.
Settle
this now.
Ron Merchant
MTC-00011915
From: Ronald S. Frantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen;
As a consumer of Microsoft products, I believe that all actions
against the company should be settled as expeditiously as possible.
I have not been harmed by the company in any way.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Frantz
872 Porterville Road
East Aurora, New :York 14052
MTC-00011916
From: Rick Lauder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let Microsoft do it's business! It is helping to shape the
world.
MTC-00011917
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This case is a ridiculous. Microsoft's so called monopoly is
based on technical merits not market manipulation. Without
Microsoft's vision and highly integrated products the whole computer
revolution would not have happened.
Give them a break--too many of us owe our livelyhoods to them.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011918
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time to bring all litigation against Microsoft to an end
without any further legal proceedings. The courts have ruled in the
case against Microsoft and that ruling should stand. Our tax
dollars, the time of the courts and the U. S. economy can all be
best served by putting this matter behind us. As a user of
Microsoft's software I have never felt that I was being forced to
deal with a monopolist, overcharged for the products I bought or
deprived of the opportunity to purchase something better because
Microsoft had stifled innovation by others.
Sincerely
John A. Meintjes.
MTC-00011919
From: john hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I own no Microsoft stock. I get upset with Microsoft at times
just as many others do, but this settlement should not be
overturned.
First, I believe the intrusions of politically driven solutions
into settlements other than those of typical ``case law'' suits, ie.
land problems, immigration, the right of political entities the
right to and necessity of taxation as examples will diminish clarity
within the courts. Second, I feel an overturn will continue to
punish the concept of commercial knowledge ownership and that has
great peril for innovation and advancement into the technical future
of our nation.
Thank you
John Hickman
2266 E. Montrose Canyon Drive
Tucson, Az. 85737
MTC-00011920
From: Cynthia Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Speaking as a stockholder of Microsoft and middleclass American
worker--- Teacher--- I have been dumbfounded about the course of
this procedure--- Please settle this case in favor of Microsoft---
let innovation ,of all kinds, have the freedom it deserves to create
advances in technology. Thank you,
Cynthia Olson
MTC-00011921
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For me personally as a Internet Software product manager, it
would be better that Microsoft WAS a monopoly. That way, I do not
have to insure that my products run in Netscape on Unix Clients and
I do not have to worry about J2EE zelots insisting that I rewrite my
products to suit their IT knowledge base. The weeker you make
Microsoft, the harder my job is. :)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011922
From: Lynn Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I was very disappointed when I first heard the results of the
settlement that the DOJ agreed to with regard to the Microsoft
Antitrust case, because I believe that it does not really prevent
Microsoft from continuing in the same unethical business practices
that they have been found to have engaged in for years. I was
likewise very pleased that at least nine of the states did not agree
and continued to push for a settlement that, in my opinion, would
more appropriately fit the charges for which Microsoft was found
guilty.
I am a Software Developer in the Internet industry. At first, I
was not in favor of the Anti-trust suit at all, feeling that
Microsoft (or any successful company) shouldn't be punished for
being successful. But even when I felt that way, I still believed
that they
[[Page 25518]]
engaged in unethical business practices regarding dealing
with OEM's, etc. And for that I believed they should be tried and if
found guilty punished in enough of a way that it would stop them
from doing it in the future.
However, as I've studied both sides of the issues I have
concluded that it isn't in the best interest of the people of the
United States for Microsoft to continue to be allowed to maintain
it's monopoly hold. Microsoft's patterns of behavior ultimately harm
the consumer because they stifle competition from those who might
otherwise make more reliable, quality products. Microsoft hasn't
ceased in these harmful behaviors even when under the threat of the
Anti-trust lawsuit. I do not believe they will change these patterns
without a much stricter settlement that FORCES them to do so.
I hope you will find that the Proposed Final Judgement is NOT in
the best interest of the people and will give more consideration to
the settlement proposed by the remaining nine states. In fact, in
many ways I think that Microsoft gets off so easy in the Proposed
Final Judgement that they make the DOJ look like a JOKE because
Microsoft's legal team out smarted them. Microsoft barely get's a
slap on the wrist, they get to continue to use the same unfair
business practices they always have, and they even gain some
protection for their bad practices.
Thank you for your consideration,
Lynn Walton
Director of Internet Services Franklin University
(These views do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)
MTC-00011923
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Honorable Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly,
I am an IT Professional (Vice President of Product Development)
at CacheFlow--an Internet infrastructure company not affiliated with
Microsoft.
After reviewing the documents published by DOJ on the matter of
the ``Microsoft Settlement'' as well as arguments pro and con from
supporters/opponents, it is my belief that this settlement reaches a
good balance of keeping Microsoft ``in line'' regarding their
business practices without imposing undue restraint to hinder
innovation from Microsoft or any other technology company. I also
find the punitive measures sufficient and simple.
I hope you will find the settlement satisfactory and not give in
to critics whose sole purpose is to keep the case unsettled and in
some cases, extort financial or competitive gain from delaying the
settlement.
Sincerely,
Murat Divringi
Vice President of Product Development
CacheFlow Inc.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011924
From: Joy Ulskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen I want to see the Microsoft case settled.
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement I'm
sure was tough, but seems reasonable and fair to all parties
involved.
Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them,
the industry and the American economy. The last thing the American
economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy
competitors and lawyers and stifles innovation. Don't let these
special interests defeat the public interest. Settle now so we, The
United States, can move on. Haven't we endured enough setbacks with
Sept 11th?
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011925
From: Dennis Battrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I really think that it's time for you folks to settle this
issue. We've forgotten what the issue was anyway so now you all look
like even bigger money wasting fools. As a consumer, I was never
convinced that this was ever anything more than a money grab by
certain influential individuals who were unable to design and
produce software that anyone wanted. Have you noticed that nothing
really new has been produced lately? Let the market take care of
itself and quit trying to protect your special interests under the
guise of ``protecting the public from the big bad corporation''.
Enough is enough!
Sincerely,
Dennis T. Battrick
MTC-00011926
From: Alex Ray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex Ray
31830 Bittorf Lane
Cordova, MD 21625
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
First the Clinton Justice Department and now President Bush's
legal beagles are trying to damage the one company that is directly
responsible for this nation's economic boom in the 90's and our
world leadership in technology.
Fine them if they broke the law, but get on with it. No company
should endure the hoops that Justice Department forced on Microsoft.
I thought this Administration supported entrepreneurship, no
matter how tough one of the competitors might be.
Sincerely,
Alex Ray
MTC-00011927
From: Cheryl Shirk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cheryl Shirk
2420 Rollins Ave.
Panama City, FL 32405
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Cheryl L. Shirk
MTC-00011928
From: Erika Gifford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Erika Gifford
14431 Greencastle Dr #10
Chesterfield, MO 63017
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better
[[Page 25519]]
products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Erika T. Gifford
MTC-00011929
From: george m kousaleos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:03pm
Subject: [email protected]. January 15, 2002
Dear Sir,
I have very little to gain by a settlement, but I Had 800 shares
of microsoft as the investment climbed in the past all of a sudden a
fellow graduate SunMicrosystems convinced everybody he was the
injured party. For 4 months I had stock in SunMicrosystems as
recommended by JBOH. I held it and never made a trade. After
transfer to First Union I still hadn't been able to trade for a
profet it was only after Microsoft got in trouble, and long after I
sold my shares in SunMicrosystems did SunMicrosysems stock move.
After changing my account to Fidelity Instead of buying Intel I
bought Microsoft and for two years Microsoft only did good for those
of us investors.
The courts made an unfavorable ruling and the entire USA and
world economy has been suffering. People like me that have a stock
that's climbing invest in other stocks by margin spending.
I can tell you from experience that when Microsoft dropped I
could no longer acquire stocks that I was investing in because my
portfolio didn't have any winners left.
I don't even have 50 shares of Microsoft.
I have 300 Ford
``````Juniper
I ``300 Xerox
I hope Microsoft can reclaim their leadership. I wish I could be
rich or at least get some shares on margin.
Last year I had 540,000 shares of a certain stock which reverse
split 1:50 and then 1:40 leaving me with 450 shares
I sold 400 shares for $4000. which I also lost .
People Like Bill Gates I liked spending the money he was making
me. I would like to do it over and be a soft spoken and generous as
he is generous. I would like to have confidence that can make a man
so soft spoken.
I hope this letter affirms that I want the market to go up, not
down, and Bill Gates and company are past and have the potential to
be future leaders. All businesses have like sports have outstanding
contributors. Microsoft is one company even my parents liked and
encouraged my owning stocks.
With Respest,
George M. Kousaleos
P.S. I do not own any Microsoft today but I would risk some
money if the economy picks me up.
MTC-00011930
From: Larry Gribble
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Gribble
11408 W 112thTerr
Overland Park,, KS 66210
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Larry Gribble
MTC-00011931
From: Timothy Aden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Aden
21289 Iverson Avenue North
Forest Lake, MN 55025-7902
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tim Aden
MTC-00011932
From: Earl H. Conrad
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Earl H. Conrad
720 West Main Street
Waynesboro, Pa 17268
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Earl H. Conrad
MTC-00011933
From: Dianna Gibson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dianna Gibson
7000 E. 47th Avenue Drive, Suite 100
Denver, Co 80216
January 15, 2002
[[Page 25520]]
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dianna S. Gibson
MTC-00011934
From: Myron Schreiner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Myron Schreiner
215 Belmont Dr
Reeds Spring, MO 65737
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Myron M Schreiner
MTC-00011935
From: Barbara Wiot
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Wiot
1001 Main Street
Cincinnati, oh 45202
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barbara Wiot
MTC-00011936
From: Sharon Robie
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Robie
1986 Pickering Trail
Lancaster, PA 17601
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sharon Robie
MTC-00011937
From: Kris Pitcairn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kris Pitcairn
po box 233
Bryn Athyn, PA 19009-0233
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kris H. Pitcairn
MTC-00011938
From: CHRISTINE WILLHAUCK
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CHRISTINE WILLHAUCK
PO. BOX 1100 PMB 277
[[Page 25521]]
GASTONIA, NC 28053-1100
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
CHRISTINE L. WILLHAUCK
MTC-00011939
From: Carol Bourgeois
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Bourgeois
4013 Manchaca Road #6
Austin, TX 78704
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial spent taxpayers' dollars wisely while
creating cutting edge case law to govern the high tech industry. To
place the burden of such a litigation onto smaller companies would
have been a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech
industry. It is high time for this trial to be over, however,
patience is a virtue, often forgotten in litigation.
Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, guided
by new and applicable interpretations of our precedential law,
rather than flailing about in the courtroom, reinventing the wheel.
And the consumers who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh
of relief, with some reassurance that the expensive hunk of plastic
on their desks will continue to function, however imperfectly.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. Of course, most of those
Americans had absolutely no idea how much the Microsoft litigation
benefitted them in terms of establishing the ground rules under
which E-Commerce is conducted.
Once the case is finally over, high tech companies can get into
the business of innovating and creating better products for
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation with the
3000 pound gorilla that is Microsoft.
True competition means creating better goods and offering
superior services to consumers. Microsoft can serve by example.
Should our current government consider getting out of the
business of stifling product litigation and tying the hands of
consumers in pursuing their options- (ahem, ``tort reform'')
American consumers will once again pick the winners and losers on
Wall Street.
With the benefits of the Microsoft litigation; a usable body of
precedential law, the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to return to creating new and competitive products and
technologies like they did in the Clinton administration, rather
than hoping they can buy access and favors. (Like Enron?)
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Carol Bourgeois
MTC-00011940
From: Stu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this litigation immediately. Nine states wishing
to continue litigation are not enough out of 50 states, to justify
to continued the expense of litigation.
Sincerely,
Stuart B. Stephens, Jr.
Stu Stephens, Assoc. Broker, CRS, ABR, GRI
RE/MAX Island Properties
PO Box 1449 or 199 Main St., Eastsound WA 98245
800 551-1677, 360 376-2599; fax: 360 376-6211
www.orcas-stephens.com>
www.stu-patsy-stephens.com>
www.orcasislandonline.com>
mailto:[email protected]
For a tour of Orcas, click www.visualtour.com/show.asp?T=12655>
MTC-00011941
From: William D Fowble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 15, 2002
We have a free enterprise system in this Country. Perhaps it
would be a monopoly for Microsoft to give it's products out in this
settlement, BUT perhaps the 1 billion would allow disadvantaged
schools to make a ``choice'', as to whose products they would prefer
to use and renovating their license practices would be a plus. Not
being a computer geek, I like using software from other companies,
as well as the Microsoft products. It's pertinent for the Court to
come up with a reasonable solution to this problem and ``Let's move
on''!!! I think some people/States are playing ``hardball'' on this
issue and ``milking the cow'' for all it's worth!! Let's not have
happen in this settlement, like in the tobacco settlement, that the
money/products from Microsoft gets short changed for the purpose for
which it is intended.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Fowble
Lynnwood, WA.
MTC-00011942
From: Patterons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:16pm
Subject: Ref;Micosoft Suit
I personally feel that the Government should drop the whole
thing as soon as possible, before the DOJ looks anymore foolish. I
think that the ``Software'' companies that complained about
Microsoft's supposed unfair practices used you folks at DOJ on a
``witchhunt'' against Microsoft because these other ``Software''
Company's have inferior products and can't compete unless it crys to
the DOJ that Microsoft isn't playing fair!!!!!! And then tangle
everybody up in a asinine lawsuit. The ``States'' of course have to
get on the band-wagon because they smell ``Big Cash Settlements''.
So the States, who really don't give a real shit about they're
consumers, are just in it to try and line their state coffers with
Corporate money.(Just look at the Tobacco Suits, none to those
settlements went to prevent or stop smoking, in most cases I read
about it went to the ``States'' General funds. The Tobacco Companies
paid out the money for the Anti-Smoking Ads.
The States still want the TAX Money from the Tobacco.) So as
usual its the American people who get screwed by this kind of B.S.
Suit against a Company who just makes a better product. The DOJ
could do us all a favor and try not to protect us so much. If there
is a product out there that doesn't work or if we don't like it ,
guess what, we the consumer don't have to buy it!!!! Gee what a
novel concept, I think its called Capitalism.
So please stop wasting tax payers funds and go after some real
criminals, maybe Terrorists Money Laundering Operations, Organized
crime, etc. I'm sure these problems haven't gone away since DOJ
devoted so much time to the Microsoft case.
Thank you for your time.
S.L.Patterson,
Okanogan, WA.
MTC-00011943
From: Jane F Chi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please let Microsoft free because you didn't do any good for
consumers!!!!!
MTC-00011944
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This case should have been settled long ago. It is wasting tax
payers money. Microsoft, Intel and other technology companies are
the architects of the Untied States current prosperity. We should be
[[Page 25522]]
thanking them for making all of lives better than they would have
been without them. Don't allow Microsoft's competitors to use our
tax dollars for their benefit. Settle the case NOW!
Richard J. Dux
8509 Trumbull
Skokie, IL 60076
MTC-00011945
From: Everett Snelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:10pm
Gentlemen: The public does not want to hamper future innovation
at Microsoft. Please settle this now!
Everett Snelson
MTC-00011946
From: mark scheel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As private citizens and shareholders of Microsoft, we would like
to state emphatically that we believe this matter should be settled
now and all further litigation terminated. It's in the best
interests of the country as a whole to move on. Thank you.
Mark Scheel and Dee Snook
MTC-00011947
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the Justice Dept.should take the necessary course
of action to swiftly resolve the cases pending against Microsoft.
Enough is Enough ! From my viewpoint the entire anti trust affair
was instigated by Senators and Congressmen sympathetic to
Micorsoft's competitors. These elected officials have just been
carrrying on a vendetta for the companies that are in competition
with Microsoft,with no regard for the consumer's interest. The
competing software companies should expend their efforts towards
making software that is competitive and usefull in the
marketplace,instead of trying to stiffle software and systems that
the public needs and desires.
Lets get on with the future.
Arlen Paranto
P.O.Box 304
Eatonville,Wash.98328
MTC-00011948
From: The Lamoses
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My vote is for Microsoft. This has always been a ridiculous
battle between Microsoft's competitors and Microsoft, and a bunch of
money-hungry politically-motivated Attorneys Generals. Shouldn't
this be about consumers? How can anyone honestly say that consumers
have been shafted or gotten a raw deal, from a company that
practically invented personal computing, enabled the popularization
of the Internet, and all of the benefits and wealth they have
brought to this country?!
My biggest concern is that you're not going to hear from the
majority of the citizens, who are very happy and satisified with
Microsoft and their contributions to the technology industry and
this country's economy. Instead, you'll hear the beating of drums
from their competitors (who have a accumulated and perfected their
anti-Microsoft rhetoric producing machinery and anti-Microsoft
lobbying tactics), and who stand to gain a lot from the debilitation
of Microsoft. It's a sad day in America when competitors and AGs use
the justice system to further their own agendas, instead of doing
their jobs and allowing companies to compete in the open market.
Thanks
MTC-00011949
From: Tom Freeman (Salt Lake City)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not encourage you to pursue the private settlement proposed
by Microsoft. It would, in my opinion, create even more of a
monopoly than they already have. There has to be some cost to a
company that has done what Microsoft has done. Justice. These
opinions are my own and in no way reflect the position of my
company.
Thanks,
Tom Freeman
Citrix Systems, Inc.
[email protected]
801.816.3309
MTC-00011950
From: Jeff Gillings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have 15 years experience in software engineering and a B.S. in
business. The Revised Final Judgement addresses a number of
important points; good job on those.
However, it does not address the following:
1) Punishment to Microsoft for past monopolistic behavior,
specifically, destroying Netscape.
2) Microsoft predatory pricing. This should be a major piece of
the settlement. After the development costs are paid for, sales of
software are almost all profit; allowing Microsoft (or any company
which can license software to hundreds of millions of customers) to
reap huge profits. How are you going to keep microsoft from using
that money to price competition out of the market.
Microsoft has a strong history of this behavior; Internet
Explorer was given away. I don't see anything in the Final Judgement
that addresses this very important point.
MTC-00011951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is convicted of having overcharged for a product which
people bought of their own free will because it was better than any
other. Now Microsoft has made a tremendously generous offer to give
it away, but a judge says it isn't enough, and would help to
popularize Microsoft products, which the public already prefer. The
government seeks to discourage excellence, and condemns businesses
which give the public what they want, while protecting businesses
which offer less popular products. Socialists in government
penalizes successful businesses, even though they pay huge taxes,
because socialists want success to be dependent on government,
rather than private initiative, regardless of consequent loss to the
consumer. Socialists seek government power, not social prosperity.
Houston Rice
MTC-00011952
From: Stephen Heaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Microsoft will never change. I think the government is
too slow to react to the largest computer software maker in the
world. They have a lock on the desktop, you still cannot buy Linux
preloaded from Dell, HP etc. Money is NOT the answer, if you cannot
break them up, why spend all my tax dollars?? It all seems like
another mass waste of my tax dollars (again).
Break them up in 3 parts, but since the ``new'' group of public
servants decided not to seek that, Microsoft should have refund to
us, over 100 bucks each, to any one who has bought a software
package from them that cost 100 dollars or more In the last 3 years.
The end user needs a large refund, if money is the only thing they
understand.
Thanks for reading this!
MTC-00011953
From: Jon Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
I am an information technology professional with 8 years of
extensive experience in software engineering, systems
administration, data design, coding, and testing. I have a broad
background, but my core competencies are in web systems. While
serving as a commissioned officer in the US Air Force, I installed,
administered, and developed with my first web server in 1994, at the
advent of the world wide web. In my career, I have worked with a
variety of operating systems, including flavors of Unix and versions
of Microsoft Windows. I've also used an array of open standards,
including HTML, CSS, Http, LDAP, CGI, XML, and Java. Very recently,
I moved an entire internet and intranet infrastructure for a large
academic medical center from a Unix (Sun Solaris) hosted environment
to one using Microsoft based servers. Currently, I work
independently as a developer and consultant. As such, I feel I have
relevant insight into Microsoft's technology and business practices.
I favor a best of breed approach to system development, so I also
believe I represent an objective point of view. I regularly use
Microsoft software at work and home, and continue to do so where I
deem appropriate; I am writing this message in Microsoft Outlook,
for instance. I also use other operating systems and recommend their
use in circumstances where I judge there is a better alternative.
[[Page 25523]]
Throughout my career, my ability to provide value to my
employers or customers has been adversely affected by Microsoft's
technology and business practices. The software they deliver,
particularly new software, is typically far less efficient, stable,
or secure than alternative approaches. Their products are usually
designed with dependencies that require you to use other Microsoft
products and sabotage the concurrent use of non-Microsoft
approaches. Many of their offerings do not uninstall properly, and
leave a permanent presence on the hosting system. Because they write
the operating system too, some of their applications make use of
capabilities that are not available to non-Microsoft developers.
Their licensing practices are mercenary and anti-competitive, using
vehicles like sole-source relationships to build inordinate market
share. Once Microsoft gains control of a market, they begin raising
prices at a rate faster than the industry in general. Most
importantly, Microsoft has repeatedly undermined and perverted open
standards to serve their own ends, including every one I listed
above.
I know that business is competitive by nature, but I agree with
the Justice Department's repeated findings that Microsoft's business
practices crossed the line and were illegal. Further, I believe that
Microsoft created a situation for itself that is bad for the
industry and the economy at large over the long term. While I will
concede that many dot-coms burned capital on irresponsible business
models and implementations, I attest that Microsoft has some amount
of personal responsibility for the bursting of the bubble economy
and the current economic woes of the information technology industry
and the country. The cost of developing on the web should not be as
high as it is now, but who knew in the early days of e-commerce the
momentum of progress in open standards could be stymied so
effectively by one player. Microsoft is in direct conflict with the
cooperative culture that brought us the internet, and their long
term strategies will exacerbate this problem: where Microsoft
succeeds, all others will bleed. History will not be kind if we will
have to address the same issues again because of an ineffectual
remedy.
If the terms of the anti-trust settlement can be realized, then
it may make some difference. However, I don't have faith that
Microsoft will adhere to the spirit of the settlement, I have even
less confidence in the Justice Department's ability to enforce the
terms of the settlement expediently (especially given how long this
initial anti-trust process has dragged on), and I believe the
problem is larger than middleware. In particular, I don't believe
anything short of making Windows open source would prevent Microsoft
from taking advantage of the ambiguous nature of a ``middleware
interface'' to continue to constrain consumers and developers. Don't
forget that in addition to the operating system and productivity
application markets, Microsoft has a big stake in development tools;
a hook into middleware functionality doesn't mean much to me if I
have to use another Microsoft product to implement it. And I've read
some of Microsoft's published information on its software in the few
instances where it doesn't directly involve one of their development
tools, and it still didn't enable me to communicate cleanly with the
Windows operating system or their middleware (even when it's
supposed to). At best, they're support staff has pleaded
incompetence. I'll buy it, too; they have no history of successfully
supporting cooperative development outside of Microsoft tools.
Microsoft's entire oeuvre has a tendency to be black box. To achieve
its aims, this settlement would have to completely reverse
Microsoft's closed corporate and development culture. I'm skeptical
that this settlement will lead to anything more than continued legal
squabbling.
On a separate note, the recent class action settlement is too
plainly a vehicle for Microsoft to broaden it's market share while
simultaneously getting good press. I view it less as ineffectual and
more as a disgrace to our legal system.
This message is a general statement of perspective. If you want
more insight, specific examples, or verification of my credentials
feel free to contact me.
Jon
Jon Roberts
[email protected]
MTC-00011954
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We in the state of New Mexico were the first to recognize the
futility of constant attacks on Microsoft Corporation. I urge you to
settle the lawsuits once and for all. While Apple corporation
postures about being shut out of the schools by Microsoft, I don't
see them giving away an equivalent dollar amount of computer
hardware and software. . .
The political interests of several states should not hold up the
settlement.
Gerald N. Gold, MD
MTC-00011955
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is to register my approval of the microsoft-DOJ settlement.
Only nine states refuse endorsement; the other nine states, the DOJ,
and Microsoft all agree that the settlement makes retribution for
Microsoft's anti-trust wrongs and provides safeguards against future
violations. Not only is the remedy of the nine refusing states
unfairly draconian, it could well be a harm to the technology
economy. Originally, anti-trust laws were to protect the consumer,
not advantage competitors.
I fear that one thing motivating the recalcitrant states is
serving the special interest of competitors located in their
respective states. Microsoft should not be allowed to squelch
competition, but competitors should win because their product
satisfies consumers and not through legal machinations.
Sincerely yours,
W. Potter Woodbery, Ph.D.
[email protected]
MTC-00011956
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the interest of stabilizing America's wavering economy, I
earnestly urge an end to this long running attack on Microsoft. The
recently proposed settlement among the defedant and the majority of
the plaintiffs appears to be more than just for all parties. To have
a minority contingent holding out for more damages is dragging the
country down in the hope that the minority may benefit at the
expense of the well bing of all Americans.
Bidwell Moore
MTC-00011957
From: David R Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally:
I am writing to express my concern that Microsoft is getting off
the hook for its illegal monopolistic activities. The current
Proposed Final Judgment announced by the Justice Department fails to
deal with the illegal activities pointed out by past court
investigations and rulings. It would be wrong and bad for the public
well-being to allow this to happen. I hope that you will take action
to do what is lawful, just, and in the public interest, not what is
in the interest of Microsoft. When every personal computer sold in
America, apart from Apple computers, carries Microsoft software as
its primary mode of operation, it is apparent that they have totally
cornored the market. This was the finding of the latest court
decision. Therefore, Microsoft's illegal hold on the market should
be broken and Microsoft should be denied the fruits of its past
violations, just as the Apellate court ruled. I hope that you will
uphold this ruling and take appropriate action.
Finally, I hope you will make it impossible for Microsoft to
carry on any future anticompetitive activity. I have friends who
work in the computer industry, and they have verified that Microsoft
indeed engages in this type of activity, much to their dismay. Our
country and economy thrive on competition and the freedom to develop
and market new products. Microsoft has the money and power to
squelch all competition and to continue to further their own
interests at everyone else's expense.
Therefore, you are really the last hope of doing something to
stop them. Please do so. This is a huge and incredibly important
decision. Please do all that you can to end this monopoly. I appeal
to you as a public servant to indeed do that which is in the
interest of the citizens whom you serve. Illegal activity should be
ended, not pandered to and empowered to continue.
Sincerely yours,
David R. Hill
66 Hobson St.,
Brighton, MA 02135
[[Page 25524]]
MTC-00011958
From: Clayton Harrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I hereby express my approval for the settlement reached between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am saddened and angry
that nine states refuse to accept the settlement and are forcing
more litigation. I sincerely hope they lose. I believe it is past
time to settle this case and for everyone to move on.
MTC-00011959
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the settlement. Microsoft has always acted in the
best interest of the software industry. Their active encouragement
of industry-wide standards has made us all winners, even those
companies and states now claiming foul, and they have promoted the
rise and success of an entire new industry. Even though they had the
capability to do so, Microsoft has never acted as a monopoly. The
have kept the cost of their systems and programs very reasonable,
and by doing so, they made incredibly advanced information
processing capabilities available to nearly everyone in our country.
Thank you.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00011960
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Microsoft has made a good offer. Lets settle this and get on
with business. We have enough other problems without trying to break
up a business.
Russ Rogers
MTC-00011961
From: Carter, Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This litigation continues to leave uncertainty for both
customers and the market.
Please get this case closed ASAP.
Mark L. Carter
* (205)967-9330
7 Fax (205)967-0120
* mailto:[email protected]
http://www.ACP-Inc.com http://www.acp-inc.com/>
MTC-00011962
From: Earl Hoveland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I consider Microsoft's settlement offer to be more than fair. I
have purchased Microsoft products for ten years and have never felt
they should be penalized for making an honest dollar. Their prices
have been fair and to penalize them in order to put dollars in the
pockets of their competitors smacks of socialism and over
regulation. Obviously the states that are dragging their feet are
just like the rest of this country-- they have too many attorneys
who can't get employment in the private sector. I say Hurrah for
Bill Gates, even if he appears to be a liberal democrat. He must be
the exception that proves the rule .
Earl Hoveland
PO Box 786
Packwood, Wa 98361
MTC-00011963
From: NY. . . NY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Consumers have not been effected by any ``Anti-trust Act'' by
Microsoft. This pro-long at is being made by Microsoft's competitors
who are using the nine state attorney generals as their lawyers,
Lets end this cast with the nine state attorney generals and
competitors so that the consumers may be able to receive Microsoft's
innovative technology.
MTC-00011964
From: Gail Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:32pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to urge a settlement in this endlessly dragged-out
litigation against Microsoft.
Right from the beginning, I was appalled by the U.S. government
interfering with--and penalizing--one of the few remaining
successful business (and superior products) still extant in the U.S.
I am a writer-editor--proud graduate of Brown University, proud
former resident of Washington, DC --and I have lived long enough to
remember pride in American products. However, if that sentiment were
not enough, I have ALSO lived long enough to have tried MANY early
software products, many word processors, many programs. The ones
that could not measure up died on the vine along the way.
My particular success story with Microsoft is that I had to
return to a 5,000-page, 5-volume history that I had edited fifteen
years earlier for a client on a Microsoft WORD-DOS-based program.
The hardware had long been deceased and I was left with the discs.
This translated perfectly and easily into a WORD 2000 for Macintosh,
about as foreign an exchange as you can get. I find that Microsoft
is on top because IT HAS THE BEST PRODUCT. I thought this was what
America was about.
Now I live in the Pacific Northwest. Seattle does not need
another economic blow (think Boeing), nor does the U.S. (I
personally think the stock market bubble that broke in March, 2000
was pricked mightily by the U.S. government going after a good
business model--Microsoft.)
I support Microsoft because it makes the best products. It is
run by a man who would probably be hacking around with computers
even if HE had to pay YOU to do it. His success came from
excellence, not slippery business practices.
Sincerely, Gail Fox, Bellingham, Washington
MTC-00011965
From: Jim Hoechstetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have been in the computer industry in a number of capacities
since 1958 when it was in its infancy and am retired from IBM. It
was absolutely unconcionable that you went after Microsoft in the
first place. They were and are guilty of one thing: developing and
producing the best products available. Microsoft products have been
chosen by most businesses and consumers because they are the best.
It appears that the Justice Department feels your charter is to find
successful businesses and cripple them. How that helps the consumer
is beyond me. The ``settlement'' that has been agreed to by
Microsoft, you, and 9 states, is generous on the part of Microsoft
and much more than the governments invovled should get. I urge the
judge to accept the agreement and end this whole debacle.
Jim Hoechstetter
3100 Cutchin Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
MTC-00011966
From: robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 5:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Having read The Revised Proposal Final Judgement, including the
Competetive Impact Statement, it is in my opinion a thorough
investigation of the Microsoft Corporation has been completed and it
is now time to finalize the U.S. Government's involvement in this
matter.
I do NOT believe that any further penalties are justified and
that the U.S. Government should conclude it's case and let the
Microsoft Corporation continue to offer to everyone all their
products legally without any more prosecution since they have agreed
to abide by the penalties and remedies imposed upon them and did
them voluntararily and are abiding to th U.S. Government's wishes by
law.
Finally I believe it is time to give Microsoft some praise for
producing great products,products that are inovative and products
that are well researched and promoted legally. Wishfully I would
hope that more corporations would be at least as inovative as
Microcoft thereby preventing the severe jealous feelings that I
believe they have for Microsoft.
I believe that in a free business society that corporations
should be free to inovate while breaking no laws.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Thacker =====
MTC-00011967
From: James Chambers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good Day,
I would like to say that I thought that the settlement in the
Microsoft case is harsh
[[Page 25525]]
enough and serves its purpose and the better
interest of the public.
I do believe, though, that Microsoft should be on probation,
much like a high-risk re-offender. I believe that at this stage,
Microsoft has appointed an internal Compliancy Officer to adhere to
the settlement and the other rulings of J. Penfield Jackson. This
shows tremendous effort on their part that they are trying to do
their best, but I think there should also be external monitoring.
This is not because I feel that Microsoft will reoffend, but
rather that, in the eyes of the public, they will not be afforded
such an opportunity. As we all know, you attract more ants with
honey; let's keep the honey out of reach and everybody wins.
James Chambers
MTC-00011968
From: Dr. James F. Gaines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:39pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
Sir/Ma'am== I am a perennial user of Windows and many of its
applications. I have n complaint about prices, service , upgrades or
other aspects that some of the Attornies General seem to want to
focus on upon directions from their respective corporate cohorts who
compete with Microsoft. Microsoft has done a good service for me and
for all of my friends who are part of the computerized public. If
Apple doesn't want Microsoft to install computers in the poorer
school for free, then let Apple install them for free. Antitrust
statutes were established to protect the consuming public and not
the businesses that fail to keep up. James F. Gaines, DVM, MS,
Business owner.
MTC-00011969
From: Samhael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
208 50th Street NW
Bradenton, FL 34209-2880
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I very much appreciate your strong leadership of DOJ over the
past year. In order for the recent settlement agreed to by Microsoft
and the Justice Department to go through it is critical that you
demonstrate uncompromising support for this agreement. This
settlement will end three years of litigation that have cost both
sides dearly in time and resources. Outside interests would like
this settlement eliminated because they claim it is unfair. The
truth however is the settlement will give competitors never before
offered access to Microsoft's secret code, including internal
interfaces. Microsoft has also agreed to make it very easy for
competitors to place their software on Microsoft operating systems.
While both sides, MS and the DOJ, are ready to settle there will be
those, many with anti-Microsoft prejudice, who will try to have this
settlement removed. I would like to state again that it is critical
for you to show tenacious support for this settlement. Thank you.
Sincere regards,
Sam Espy
MTC-00011970
From: Bill Lucks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support the settlement entered into with the DOJ and
encourage you to do all possible to put this unfortunate attack by
Microsoft's competitors behind us.
William G. Lucks
MTC-00011971
From: douglasleifeste
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft hearing
To whom, Please dont let a few narrow minded ,selfish people
hold up the settlement of this case particularly after 911. We need
to get this country back on its feet.
Thank You, Douglas Leifeste,1214 Vine Ave,Sunnyside Wa
MTC-00011972
From: Apurva Dalia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the court should accept the settlement. Public
money should not be used in bringing such cases against corporations
that have helped USA become the world 's leading economy that it is
today. If companies feel intimidated by government interference such
as this, America will not remain the prime location that it is today
to establish global businesses.
The current recession and events threaten to set us back. We
need to do everything we can to not let this happen. The Government
needs to focus on issues like Security, Foreign Policy and Economic
Stimulus. There is no point in dragging this case any further.
Please accept the settlement.
Thanks
Apurva Dalia
9926, 128th Ave NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
MTC-00011973
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Members:
I admit that I have Microsoft stock in my meager retirement
account and have a vested interest in their well being. However, as
I see it you have an opportunity to provided common sense solutions
to this legal debacle that has gone far too far already. I urge you
to find for Microsoft and allow them and other companies to get on
with the business of innovation and life improvement for us all.
Thank you,
Robert G. Aikins
MTC-00011974
From: Smith-Bates, Jacqui
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would encourage the DoJ and the States to settle the Microsoft
case. It has been tedious, has not proven that Microsoft has hurt
consumers, and has been detrimental to the U.S. Economy. The case
should be settled immediately.
Thank you,
Jacquelyn Smith
4319 Wallingford Ave
N Seattle, WA 98103
MTC-00011975
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case and allow Microsoft to function
without government intrusion. Microsoft is a model of
entrepreneurial spirit in the United States and the other companies
who cried foul should take a lesson from Microsoft and compete in a
capitalistic marketplace that is unfettered by government
manipulation.
Thank you for your consideration,
C. Austin
MTC-00011976
From: thebirdsalls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:52pm
Subject: Move on and off Microsoft
Get off Microsoft's case!
Elise M. Birdsall
1896 Peachtree Ave.
The Villages, Fl 32162
352-259-9870
MTC-00011977
From: Scott Futral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As both a stockholder and a citizen I am appalled that the
Microsoft offer of settlement was not accepted!
MTC-00011978
From: WILLIAM A CLEMENTS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This whole law suit is a terrible thing for Microsoft and our
country. It is preposterous for our justice department to stick
their noses in private business when they ``failed to share'' with
other merchants their secrets. If these other designers of software
can do a better job than Microsoft on their own, then so be it.
And don't try to cheat Microsoft out of its justs rewards for
doing a superlative job.
William A Clements
[email protected]
MTC-00011979
From: Walt Casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We have wasted enough tax money on the Microsoft case, it is
time stop any more action.
Walt Casey
MTC-00011980
From: thebirdsalls
[[Page 25526]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 6:58pm
Subject: finalize the Microsoft case ASAP
Gentlemen:
It's time to move on. Microsoft is the goose with the golden
eggs. Oracle is using USA's, DoJ for competitive advantage. Finalize
it!
Marianne Gyle
1896 Peachtree Ave.
The Villages, Florida 32162
352-259-9870
[email protected]
CC:Elise M. Birdsall
MTC-00011981
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
This action by the remaining States can only continue the attack
on American enterprise and the freedom to be innovative. The nine
States are simply going after Microsoft's cash position so they can
make high settlements with outside attorneys and add more to each
States' general funds. Much the same as those States sharing in the
bonanza produced by the tobacco industry.
Buyers in the past had the opportunity to load what ever was
available in the operating system inventory if they wished. They
were not forced to buy MS products anymore than we are forced to buy
a Ford. As for buyers paying too much, how in the world will this
ever be determined?
Finish this farce being done in the name of justice.
Sincerely,
John L. Eskelin
Puyallup, WA
MTC-00011982
From: SHARONNE PLOTNIK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:07pm
I find it very disturbing that we do not let microsoft help our
public schools. The settlement and lawsuits are now just feeding
into people that want to make money on lawsuits. Think of the rest
of the people--get over it and get on with the business of progress.
MTC-00011983
From: James Lambo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Microsoft is providing a tremendous product to the public.
Please find a way to settle this case fairly and let them get on
with their work.
Jim Lambo
MTC-00011984
From: EDWARD E KELLUM
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I concur with the proposed Microsoft Anti-rust settlement with
the exception of Microsoft supplying schools with Microsoft
software. This would be very unfair to Apple Corp. As I understand
it, this part of the agreement has been denied by the judge. If
Microsoft gave money only to the schools and the schools could
select the hardware software they chose, I think that would be OK.
I am a Mac computer user and I also use Microsoft Office
Software, Microsoft Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. I think
that Microsoft has supported the Mac computer very well. That is in
contrast to Word Perfect word processor which dropped Mac support
and to Netscape which was a much poorer browser than Internet
Explorer. I used to use Word Perfect and Netscape. I think it would
be detrimental to computer users and the United States if more
destructive terms were adopted, such as a break up of the company.
Edward Kellum
615 Vaquero Rd.
Monrovia, CA 91016
[email protected]
MTC-00011985
From: Gunner Agosto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
The Microsoft settlement is too critical an issue to allow the
stalling tactics by a small minority of users bent on enriching
themselves. The issues have been have been endlessly argued and a
reasonable settlement reached through the Tunney Act. Let's finally
move on.
Gunner Agosto
MTC-00011986
From: Shelley Blumberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a consumer who uses and likes Microsoft software. I hope
that the settlement that was reached with the Department of Justice
and nine states will be accepted. I want Microsoft to focus on
developing more and better products. Microsoft produces good
products that work well, are easy to use, and are low cost. I don't
think that taxpayer money should be spent on yet more lawsuits
against Microsoft to benefit Microsoft's large competitors, such as
Sun Microsystems and Oracle. These companies should compete with
Microsoft by producing better products at competitive prices rather
than using the judicial system to try to prevent Microsoft from
producing innovative products. I hope that I will open my Wall
Street Journal soon and see that the DOJ-Microsoft settlement has
been accepted and that the case is over!
Sincerely,
Shelley Blumberg
MTC-00011987
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:15pm
Subject: (no subject)
I think its time the goverment left private business alone
MTC-00011988
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
They sure are making a lot about little. Why not make a small
resonable settlement to those that are crying because of their
inability to compete and move on.
What an expensive pain they are being.
Ted VanZwol
MTC-00011989
From: Evelyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
In my opinion the settlement that has been reached in the
Microsoft case should be consumated. I am in favor of settlement now
and in not prolonging this case with further litigation. It is good
for America and therefore in the public interest. It is not in the
public interest to spend taxpayer's dollars to drag this out
further.
Sincerely,
Evelyn H. Payne
MTC-00011990
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
Litigation on Microsoft Anti-trust charges have gone on much too
long and continuation cannot be good for our economy.
Microsoft provides a great reliable service which may be
seriouly compromised if it is further restricted.
J.R. Scrivener
MTC-00011991
From: Kerlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
Microsoft has done more to bring order and ease of use in it's
software than any other company.
THANK YOU. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Rick Kerlin
MTC-00011992
From: markthome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:22pm
Subject: Holding up progress
Please do what you can to enable the companies of the United
States to progress on the basis of their achievements. Not on the
basis of one suing another in order to compete.
Mark Thome,
Bellevue, Washington
MTC-00011994
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:28pm
Subject: Fwd: Returned mail
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DO 20590-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion of the recent settlement
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I think the case
dragged out far too long, and should
[[Page 25527]]
be finalized, even if the
penalties imposed on Microsoft are too harsh.
I am a proponent of free enterprise and I think Microsoft should
not be restrained from being able to innovate and grow as they have
in the past. I also do not think Microsoft has a monopoly that could
possibly be construed as bad for our economy. Actually, I think
Microsoft as it is today does more good than harm for our public
But, I understand some of the lawmakers' and politicians'
complaints, and that is why the terms of the settlement are more
than fair. Microsoft will be conceding internal interfaces and
protocols. They will be designing future Windows versions so that
competitors can more easily promote their own products. And, the
government will be forming a three-person team to monitor compliance
with the settlement. We are at war and in recession. We need
Microsoft's industry strength to be building wealth and technology
for our country instead of fighting legal battles in the courts. I
thank you for your time and hope your office looks out for the
public's best interests, and I hope that you work with Attorney
General Butterworth to have this settled in the State of Florida as
well.
Sincerely,
G. Kowalski
201 Orlando Boulevard
Indialantic, Florida 32903
MTC-00011995
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair and should be
approved. Let's put this behind us and grow our economy, to which
Microsoft contributes a good deal.
Al Ackerman
9141 NW 13 Street
Plantation, Fl 33322
MTC-00011996
From: hairdoc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do now and always have felt that the DOJ's and various state
attorneys suits against Microsoft Corp. are the result of the
prejudiced views of elected officials from states where Microsoft's
competition reside. This constitutes what I and everyone I speak to
considers an injustice perpetrated against Microsoft Corp. As you
know millions of our tax dollars have already been wasted in an
attempt to wrongfully punish this company. I like most Americans who
used P.C's. before the advent of Windows hold Microsoft in the
highest regard. I am proud of it's performance in dominating it's
field because in doing so it took us out of the realm of cryptic DOS
code and into the future of computing. Lets face it, the driving
force behind any great advancement has always been profit. By
punishing Microsoft for doing exactly what any other large
corporation or small businessman would do in it's place sends a bad
signal to those of us who have the nerve to gamble in the high
stakes world of business. By the way what would the trade deficit
have been last quarter if Microsoft did not sell software worldwide?
Please stop this nonsense and accept this settlement that is
already much larger then the so-called (but in my mind fabricated)
harm done to the ``public'' Let this great American company thrive
and grow.
Thank you for considering my position.
Stephen F. Dasaro
MTC-00011997
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
In 1997, I took a job as a software graphical user interface
engineer for a company called Imedia Corporation. At that time, the
technical leadership of the company had determined that the
graphical user interface for the project needed to be supported in a
web browser, and as a result, Sun Microsystem's Java technology was
chosen. As a then Microsoft developer, I preferred to retain my
skills in Microsoft's tools while learning what was required to
complete my task in Java, remaining agnostic towards any particular
platform or vendor. What happened externally during the life of that
project was shocking, unprofessional, unethical, and (as we now
know) historic. Microsoft decided to wrest control of Java
technology from Sun Microsystems, not only at a platform libraries
level, but at the language-specification level by adding new
keywords whose intention was uncontestably to subvert the promise of
``write once, run anywhere'' that made Java technology an appealing
choice for developers. As we know, Sun Microsystems sued Microsoft
over this issue and won it, but at the cost of Microsoft's dropping
Java support entirely from their operating system and browser. While
this was happening, though the future of the technology was
uncertain, my own project at Imedia Corporation was going extremely
well. Java technology had allowed me enough time to complete my
project and had given me plenty of time to tune it, a much faster
turnaround for a project than I had ever been accustomed to. The
entire time I could not help but feel that the world was losing a
fantastic technology that was being stifled only through monopoly
power.
Now it is 2002, and sadly, Java technology has still not become
widely available on the desktop. I now work for Microsoft's
competitor, Sun Microsystems, which I find ironic because of
Microsoft's attempt to determine the future of my project and own my
code or choice of language. Microsoft made me a competitor, and all
I ever wanted to do was to own my own code, and be free to choose
the right technology for the right job. As a professional software
developer, it is highly important to me that Microsoft's illegal
abuse of monopoly power has stifled innovation, created an
environment with little to no regard for security, and left the
consumer vulerable and unaware that there is even anything missing
or wrong. Innovation is easy to measure, but measuring non-
innovation is difficult.
It is important for software developers and the future of
technology that Microsoft not be allowed to walk away from stifling
innovation for so long without suffering so much as a scratch, and
for these reasons (as well as more specific technical ones), I
highly disagree with the proposed settlement between the Department
of Justice, nine states, and Microsoft.
I would like to extend support to the proposed remedy by the
nine states which objected to the settlement, including the state of
California, of which I am a resident as well as a registered voter.
I believe that this solution is far better for the state of
technology, Java technology in particular, as well as the security
and integrity of data for all consumers. Because I work for a
competitor of Microsoft, I want to assert that my opinion as a
software professional is my own and is unsolicited by Sun
Microsystems.
This I swear under penalty of purjury,
Sincerely,
Michael Martak
Oakland, California
MTC-00011998
From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
TO: DOJ
The software industry is highly competitive and one dimension of
that competition is to use government to gain a competitive
advantage rather than one's own creativity and initiative. To settle
this case now in favor of Microsoft is the best way to ensure
competition, satisfy customers and help the economy get back on
track
Thanks
MTC-00011999
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft
I am in favor of supporting Microsoft. They should not be
penalized for their success.
Norma Korn
[email protected]
MTC-00012000
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that as a taxpaying citizen and someone who is eager
to see the United States keep it's lead in technology, it is time to
settle this prolonged action against Microsoft. I, more and more,
get the strong feeling that legal action is intended to foster an
unfair competitive advantage for manufacturers in those states
working to further ``muddy the water''. Why not let actions agreed
speak for themselves and let competitive products work to obtain
their own marketing success rather than ask Microsoft to subsidize
their operations. Enough already!
Donald S. Chakas
810 W. Pacificview Road
Bellingham, WA. 98226
MTC-00012001
From: PATRICIA ANTLITZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
[[Page 25528]]
P.O. Box 1395
Hampton, NH 03843-1395
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I appreciate the difficulty of your job, and the many weighty
issues you must consider, particularly in these difficult times. I
appreciate your strong leadership and the difficult decisions you
are called upon to make.
I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust case settling. I am
disappointed the settlement has been held up for so long and view
this as not beneficial to Microsoft, its competitors, the computer
industry, or the US economy. I believe that Microsoft is great
American company and has done many great things not only for the
computer industry, but also for the US economy as a whole. I am
supportive of the work they have done to make technological
advances. I would like to see the parties involved in this case move
on so that Microsoft may continue to innovate. I believe that any
further delays will be detrimental to our nation.
The settlement agreement should satisfy those who feel Microsoft
has engaged in any anticompetitive behavior. The changes purported
in the agreement are fair to all parties involved. There is no
reason to continue the litigation. Monies being spent on litigation
would be better put to use in research and development, an area that
has helped our nation maintain a competitive edge in technology and
remain a leader among nations.
Thank you for considering these comments.
With greatest respect,
Patricia Antlitz
MTC-00012003
From: Dean Parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dept. of Justice.
This is a great company in a great country. Microsoft built a
better mouse trap and people want it. This country was build on
competition, and great ideas. We should have more people like Bill
Gates, and no more Bill Clinton.
This is a hugh waste of tax payer dollars. And I for one have
seen enough waste to last a thousand years. For anyone that is
crying about Microsoft,if you can't stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen.
Sincerely
Dean Parsons
MTC-00012004
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
SETTLE!!!!! This is a ridiculous, old, tired argument and
Microsoft has awesome products at fair prices that have never harmed
anyone. They have made my life at home and running my own business
easy! I am so happy with their product, and as a business owner I
hope the government does not decide to sue every successfull company
Americans make!
Laurel James
MTC-00012005
From: Cecelia Breidenbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can't believe how long this litigation has dragged. With all
that has happened, it seems prudent to wrap this up. The states
holding out are, in my opinion, are more than greedy--in that they
turned down the MSN gift of computers for their schools. I believe
they are holding out for $$$ which I hope they don't get.
MTC-00012006
From: Robert Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TWO VOTES FOR SETTLEMENT NOW--
ROBERT C. WRIGHT
SUSAN V. WRIGHT
1524 HARVEST LANE
MANASQUAN NJ, 08736
MTC-00012007
From: Laurent Tardif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a research fellow at Monash university.
I read the judgment and all the informations given on the
Proposed Final Judgment in the US v. Microsoft case on the java-sun
web site. I'm quiet surprise, that the judgment give only
restriction to the midleware and OS issues. The judgment doesn't
give restriction on the key points, for my point of view.
I give a example. I designed a plug-in to visio, a microsoft
product. To design this plugin, the documentation tell me that I can
write my plugin in visual C++ or visual basic. Two microsoft
languages. To write and compile such language I needed to buy a
license to be able to write the application. (at the same time, we
can notice that the microsoft compiler for C or C++ language doesn't
not provide a full implementation of this language, which decrease
the possibility to compile an application written in C under unix/
linux on windows system).
After buying the Microsoft visual suite, I need to access some
API information, to do so, because the free information are useless
I need to buy a license to access the developer web site of
microsoft.
I used to use netscape to browse the web, the microsoft web site
is unaccessible with this browser, most of the page are unreadable.
So I need to set up internet explorer.
So, in conclusion, to write 200 lignes of code, I have to buy 3
microsoft license, and install 4 microsoft products. if that, is not
taking advantage of the situation, what is it.
Also the judgment doesn't say a word on what microsoft did on
free-standard, like html, or XML today. The free standard allow, in
the idea, every body to access information, from every operating
system, every browser. But microsft doesn't not provide a full
implementation of these standard, and add some private extension
inside. The effect, is, the HTML (xml now) page written by microsoft
application is only readable under microsoft.
Ask to people using linux/unix, how many html pages they can't
read, because of some microsoft features.
Also, nothing is said about the policy of microsoft to provide
free/cheap license to school, university of microsoft product. The
effect, is that new student / child know only microsoft product. And
because when you buy a new computer you have microsoft on, most of
the people don't know they have other solutions.
Laurent
Laurent Tardif
Monash University
mailBox 36--Building 26
School of Computer Science and Software engineering
Clayton Victoria 3168
Australia
Phone : (03) 99055779
www.csse.monash.edu.au/tardif/
MTC-00012008
From: david thurlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:49pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
It is high time the Government's case against Microsoft was
settled. To continue this protracted litigation against Microsoft is
a waste of taxpayer dollars and a major contribution to the legal
profession who control far too much in America and represent
competitors who want a bigger piece of the pie without earning it
through competitive effort.
The State Attorney Generals are no more than a vested interest
group seeking to transfer wealth from a creative, productive
enterprise and it's shareholders to the legal profession and causes
espoused by them.
Look what has happened in the tobacco settlement--the enormous
funds extracted from tobacco companies ostensibly to be used in
programs aimed at reducing teen smoking habits has instead been used
by most states to balance state budgets. Where is the integrity and
fairness in that--and at what cost in legal fees. Why doesn't
government stand up to the legal profession and control excessive
fees paid in this type of litigation?
Throw out the States case and let Microsoft get back to
participating in the resurgence of our damaged economy.
David Thurlow
MTC-00012009
From: Bettye Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Think it is time to settle this and move on to other things.
Microsoft has had enough and other things are more important now.
Enough is enough.
MTC-00012010
From: Joy Buck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:55pm
Subject: Settle Microsoft
[[Page 25529]]
This is a free country. Yes, Bill Gates has become a
millionaire, however, he had the brilliance to do so. If you
personally had the foresite to pursue as he did, would you be a
little upset about the government involvement in your business? I
think you need to leave his business alone.
Joy Buck
MTC-00012011
From: G. Franklin South
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is difficult for me to understand why there is still so much
controversy about settling The United States versus Microsoft, when
the United States and nine of these 'united states' have accepted a
proposed settlement. Nine other states, supported and encouraged by
competitors of Microsoft, seem to question the wisdom and the
veracity and the ability of their litigation partners to monitor and
enforce the provisions of the proposed settlement.
I fail to see how continued litigation and argument and rehash
is going to benefit me as a computer user. For that matter, I still
do not see how I have been disadvantaged or overcharged by
Microsoft. As an example, I used the Netscape Communicator for
almost a year, but then downloaded Internet Explorer and after some
use, decided that I liked the Explorer better. On the other hand,
even though I use Microsoft Word, I do not use Microsoft Excel, but
rather use IBM Lotus 123. I read the argument that the competitors
of Microsoft do not have a level playing field, that they are
disadvantaged by Microsoft size and market share. I do point out
that not too many years ago, IBM was in a similar position--they had
a monopoly on the data processing business. I dare say that many
competitors by hard work and improved technology have disproven the
argument that you can't compete against the big bully.
I think it is time for those state attorney generals who are
trying to disrupt a proposed settlement of United States versus
Microsoft, written, reviewed and accepted by the US Department of
Justice, and nine states, to put personal ambition aside for the
good of all of the data processing users. I believe it is next to
impossible to try to substantiate how further delay is going to
reward individual users of computers and computer software.
MTC-00012012
From: David Hoech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is in the best interest of the consumer to drop all
charges against Microsoft. Shame on the justice department for
letting criminals such as ADM continue to screw America and want to
take down Microsoft
MTC-00012013
From: Patty J. Le Beau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE SETTLE
I am loyal to Microsoft because I love their products and firmly
believe if left to the other computer companies we would still be in
the dark ages. Microsoft is a company which has done much for the
U.S. and much for computer users, both business and personal. I
don't understand why people keep messing around with them. I for one
am sick of it.
PLEASE SETTLE
Patty Le Beau
[email protected]
MTC-00012014
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:00pm
Subject: Government should look at PRIORITIES. .
IF the U.S. Government spent the money,time and resources on the
war against terrorism, cancer research, education instead of wasting
OUR TAX $$$ on this matter our country would be way better off, The
only potential here is to stifle innovation and creativity and
without that we would be just another third world country instead of
a great superpower that owes it's strength to innovation and
creativity to the likes of Microsoft.
MTC-00012015
From: Cliff Magnussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I believe this settlement is fair, Microsoft, as far is I'm
concerned is a great Company, the amount of technology that they
have passed on to the public is more than any Company would normally
do. Lets get on with it, and SETTLE !!! and let Microsoft do it's
job, and get this all behind us, it has been far to long in coming.
Cliff Magnussen
MTC-00012016
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it would be in the interest of the global economy to
settle this lawsuit quickly and swiftly.
One must take under consideration that Microsoft has not just
made itself wealthy but has spread the wealth among many people--its
own employees and many outside stockholders. Matter of fact the
stockmarket began to spiral downward the moment you started messing
with the company. Please consider that Microsoft has donated
millions to good use and is continuing to do so. That does not erase
some of the tactics Microsoft might have used in obtaining business
that you consider illegal and for which Microsoft will suffer
consequences and already has. Punishing the company more and more
and breaking it up into pieces will not help many folks. Look at
what has been done to the telephone company in Washington State. The
negative effects are still felt today and that was 15 years ago.
Sure it has brought about many small competitors which meanwhile
increased the bankruptcy numbers of this country. It is a good thing
that you let folks speak out for or against Microsoft. Thank you.
MTC-00012017
From: Carol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:05pm
Subject: litigation ended or prolonged
In the interest of all, lets get to the bottom of this fast and
resolve it. All want the freedom to be innovative, and we should not
be curtailed; however, there must also be a way to protect the
little guy and the weak in all charity, and not just at the whim or
preference of the rich and powerful. Humility, fairness and charity
of heart is needed here.
Carol Dixon Klein, Naples, Fl.
MTC-00012018
From: lillian ingram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:05pm
Subject: Bad Joke!
All the opposition to Microsoft is nothing more than the
competition being unable to compete with the Research and
Developments of MSFT. The government should butt out. MSFT has done
more for this country than the others combined.
MTC-00012019
From: Jim Kilgore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:05pm
Subject: Gov't vs Microsoft
To Whom It May Concern:
Please stop using Microsoft as a political football. Leave them
alone and let them innovate. I enjoy their products and I consider
that the price they charge is reasonable. Why does the government
not want companies to be successful?
Sincerely
James L. Kilgore
MTC-00012020
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:08pm
Subject: No Subject
To Whom it May Concern:
I was disappointed to see that the Government refused
Microsoft's offer to donate 1 billion dollars to the schools of the
United States. The children of this country will be the ones who
lose. I thought this administration was the Education administration
but with this decision it makes me question if the government is
really interested in education.
Lawrence E. Mast
MTC-00012021
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is about time to end this litigation which only serves to
enrich the lawyers and give the politicians a platform to attempt to
get votes. All of this is a great waste at a time when it serves to
further slow economic recovery.
Please, put an end to it!
L. B. Stuart
MTC-00012022
From: Sandra Maino
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25530]]
Date: 1/15/02 8:10pm
Subject: Settlement
It is about time the government needs to stop this witch hunt.
Microsoft innovations have allowed the common man to enter the realm
of technology by providing user friendly software and operating
systems.
We are a country which allows competition among the industries,
and if you have a good product, your company will flourish. Should
we condemn Chrysler for selling more cars than Chevrolet and call
them a monopoly? If the other software companies were so great, they
would be another Apple or Microsoft.
Perhaps in our down economy, the Justice Department would like
Microsoft to become another Enron.
MTC-00012023
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:10pm
Subject: microsoft
Hi Microsoft is the best company in the world. The justice
department has ruined a great economy by trying to bread up and
control Microsoft & the rest of the computer science world. Just
leave private enterprise alone. The government spent millions of
dollars that could have been given back to the tax payers, because
it is our money, but or no Clinton was in the pocket of the
California computer science group. Just think of all the money spent
by the government and Microsoft combine, the tax payers could have
been buying all kinds of new computers and software, that would have
been very good for the economy. Get off Microsoft's back and let it
innovate for the good of us all. Good by.
MTC-00012024
From: Brassytrader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough, Microsoft has done more for the computer
industry and the economy in general than any corporation in history.
The competition failed to realize that proprietary and non
integrated technology has no place in the computer industry and have
become part of our economic slowdown. (I remember well the pre
Windows era when new programs did not work without re-configuring
the whole operating system, now thanks to Microsoft it all works
together) Please drop this ludicrous litigation and let Microsoft
get on with the business of helping the country move ahead.
Regards,
Michael Harrington. 5097477412
MTC-00012025
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Dept. of Justice:
Please tell me by what ``moral'' right the goverment of The
United States of America goes after, with such malice, one of
America's greatest companies and one of this countries greatest
businessmen?
Could ANYONE in the Dept. of Justice write one piece of software
or produce any goods that could be marketable?
I strongly suggest that this government leave it's most
productive citizens alone because what you are doing is so immoral
that you are not only damaging the company Microsoft but all the
millions of people who have invested in this company. He, unlike the
government did not steal anyone's money but produced a product
``better'' than his competitors. This is precisely why he/Microsoft
is being punished.
The attack on this country from within is far greater than from
outside.
I urge you and your immoral laws to simply ``LEAVE THEM ALONE''!
MTC-00012026
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft litigation
Please cease the expensive litigation surrounding Microsoft. The
effort thus far has been detrimental to our economy and an example
of businesses that could not compete in the marketplace trying to
compete in court. This is an everchanging playing field and open to
anyone with new and good ideas. ENOUGH is ENOUGH>
Melvin Horwitz
223 Ludlow Road
MAnchester, CT 06040
MTC-00012027
From: W. Roger Gehman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
Let's end this farce and let Microsoft get back to doing what
they do best. This whole case was nothing more than a big political
football cooked up by Microsoft competitors, with the full
cooperation of the Clinton administration, and Attorney General
Reno. She investigated everything imagineable, except what was
really in need of investigation---namely her boss, the President!
Warren R. Gehman
126 Park Avenue
Miunt Joy, PA 17552
MTC-00012028
From: Okey McQuain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Do not appeal Microsoft settlement. Please let Microsoft alone.
Okey McQuain
227 Evergreen Drive
Elkins, WV 26241-3007
e-mail --- [email protected]
MTC-00012029
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is not the american way to penelize a company for
working hard. taking the risks involved, and making a success.
I further feel that it is envy, or jealousy on the part of the
others to accuse Microsort of being a monopoly. after all, one of
the biggest monopolies of all time is the U S Postal Service, and
their service is poor in many cases, They fail to perform a suitable
service to the american public. So I say ``Lay off microsoft, and
let then continue to provide services that have became essential to
the american public.
William H Pearson.
MTC-00012030
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
This agreement that Microsoft has offered is more the gererous
so this argument should be settled once and for all.
Kathryn Wells
MTC-00012031
From: Srinivasa Eedarapalli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Settlement is great for consumers. I do not see that
Microsoft was at fault in the first place. Judge Penfield Jackson
just used his personal opinions arrive at a rash judgement. His
judgement should have been thrown out atleast after listening to his
post trial comments.
I am a Technology Consultant and I know how SUN & Oracle loot
Companies with thier high priced products. AOL--Look who is talking
about misusing monopoly. AOL refused to let other instant messengers
to integrate with their version. Their advertisements say ``all my
friends are in AOL (basically their instant messenger)'', saying
that if you do not take AOL internet access you will miss out on
istant messages to your friends. Is this not misusing monopoly? Is
this good for consumer?
Let companies compete in marketplace. Not go to governament for
help compete.
Srinivasa Raju Eedarapalli
MTC-00012032
From: Carole Joy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:23pm
Subject: mircrosoft ruling. . .
I believe that who ever invents and sells their product should
be allowed to keep it fully theirs and all the profit from it. . . .
.Microsoft did the research, work, invention, and building of the
product and should be able to reap its reward for it. carole taylor
MTC-00012033
From: Frank Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is in the interest of this voting family to resolve tthe
Microsoft issue as soon as possible, and we urge the courts to
quickly and fairly resolve the current litigation.
Frank & Pam Spencer
MTC-00012034
From: Tom Bires
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:26pm
Subject: You got the wrong guy
[[Page 25531]]
With all due respect, Microsoft is not the bad guy in the world
of computers. As a software developer and user for the past 26 (yes
26) years, I can say that Microsoft has been a breath of fresh (and
inexpensive) air in a world of otherwise expensive computer hardware
and software. Just look at the price for any of the standard PC
applications we know and depend on. Word processors, spreadsheets,
databases, personal information managers, and yes Web browsers.
Microsoft has employed the standard economies of scale to slash
prices on all of these major applications at all times in their
history. How can that be bad for consumers. Does our justice
department really think that we are not paying enough for our
software. All of these applications on all other platforms over the
past 25 years were MUCH more expensive before Microsoft entered the
market. Sun Microsystems, the chief Egger Onner of the Justice
Department against Microsoft is a prime example of a company with
proprietary hardware and limited market software and the resulting
MUCH higher prices for all major applications--not to mention slower
performance relative to the incredibly fast Pentiums which are a
direct result of the beneficial mass marketing efforts of Microsoft
and Intel. Go after Sun if you want to punish a company that tries
to corner a market and turn the screws on its customers.
I have lived the computer revolution from the inside and can say
with no qualms, ``You got the wrong guy.''
Please feel free to contact me if I can clarify or elaborate.
Thank you for taking time to listen,
Tom Bires
Thomas L. Bires
Application Networks
444 Ramona
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 289-1048
MTC-00012035
From: John W. van der Hulst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:28pm
Subject: Settlement
I encourage the Government to settle this matter ASAP.
Microsoft's offer appears appropriate. Our economy needs this
company to concentrate all its resources on developing and exporting
its technology, not endless legal maneuvering with the Justice
department.
John van der Hulst
MTC-00012036
From: SUE BONK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please settle this suit, it would help the economy, especially
since it was the beginning of our economic slump and until this is
settled, we will remain in a slump. Microsoft leaders are not bad
guys, Enron leaders are bad guys, can't you see a difference????
S. Bonk
MTC-00012037
From: Durand C. Waters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:34pm
Subject: Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Note: Forwarded message attached.
Durand C. 'Randy' Waters
How can you even seriously consider allowing Microsoft wo gain
an even bigger hold on the software market and drive schools away
from their beneficial relationship with other systems that they have
used for years, such as Macintosh, UNIX and LINUX.
If you allow this to go as the accused is asking, you will have
lost any credibility that you may have had.
Durand C. Waters
5922 Brook Falls
Windcrest, TX 78239-2648
Durand C. 'Randy' Waters
MTC-00012038
From: NJWRESEARCH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:34pm
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
Please settle case as is. States' continuance will be against
consumers' best interests.
Gerry West
MTC-00012039
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:38pm
Subject: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
Having read the relevant documents, I am persuaded that the U.
S. Government has caved in to special interests. This is
particularly distressing, since it coincides with the recent change
in federal administration.
Puteracy is a new medium. America is playing a world wide role
in defining its parameters. It would be a disgrace if we were to
stifle competition at this early stage.
Microsoft must not be allowed to bully the American people, or
the world.
Yours truly,
Peter Hodgson
[Emeritus Professor]
MTC-00012040
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This case against Microsoft doesn't make much sense to me.
Compare it to Ford and General Motors. Lets say Microsoft is
General Motors who makes a very good pickup truck and is equipped
with a very good Chevy engine. Prior to this Ford had a better
engine but the GM engine now out performs the Ford. Now here comes
Ford who thinks it is unfair that GM is selling so many more units
with the Chevy engine than Ford sells so they get the Government to
try to force GM to put a Ford engine in the GM pickup.
What would DOJ do in a case like I just explained?
Microsoft does not have a monopoly, they just build a better
product. No one says another company cannot design something better
but if they did, people would buy it. Computer users want the best
regardless of who makes it. If people want to buy a Chevy pickup,
they want a Chevy engine in it, not a Ford.
If this settlement is supported, it will smell of politics
supported by only the lawyers that are pushing it and the outlandish
fees they will reap.
Ernie Aufenkamp
Mission, TX
MTC-00012041
From: (123)USER(u)FIRSTNAME(125) (123)USER(u)LASTNAME(125)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:36pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It is my belief that the proposed settlement by the U. S. DOJ is
fair and equitable and should be adjudicated on that basis promptly.
Ronald Matthews
San Diego, Calif
MTC-00012042
From: Terrie Takemoto-Sua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The Microsoft case should be settled. I am extremely
disappointed that the suit has returned to ligitation.
I felt that the agreement was fair to all parties involved. That
is the last thing the US economy needs. . . . .
Please do not drag this on. Let us get a settlement as quickly
as possible.
Terrie Sua
MTC-00012043
From: S. A. Cranney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I would ask the United State Justice Department to drop the
Microsoft case and let them get on with their work. It is plain and
simple, the government has egg on its face and should cut their
losses and take care of more important matters.
Thank you,
Spencer A. Cranney
1760 North 400 East
North Logan, Utah
84341
(435) 752-2273
MTC-00012044
From: Ruthanna Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Think you MUST accept Microsoft's offer. Suggest you research
the history of computers in education (a field I worked in for
years)--that research will show that Apple got special government
privileges and perks for donating Apples to Schools around the
country in the early 1980's. That is why the education system is
behind the rest of the computer world in system implementation and
design.
Suggest you give the school professionals a chance to ``catch-
up'' with M/S's offer to assist US Schools.
And that should end the entire matter.
[[Page 25532]]
Ruthanna Wolf
Whittier, California 90603
MTC-00012045
From: Susan Brunasso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:37pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT OF MICROSOFT LAWSUIT
GENTLEMEN
I think getting MicroSoft to donate $1 Billion in equipment and/
or services to the US Public School System is great for America. I
wish more settlements of this nature were made that would benefit
the general US Public. I would add that some of this settlement
value should be given to the private schools also. Maybe the value
could be appropriated in porportion to the students are in the
overall school population. Thank you & ``go get the money from
MicroSoft for the People!''
Mario V. Brunasso
MTC-00012046
From: Beth (038) Bob Vogt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I feel that the Federal and State Governments should have never
gotten involved in this case. There is no telling how many years
they have set back free enterprise and initiative. Please get this
case settled fairly. Do not believe all the sour grape sources that
are anti Microsoft and want a free ride. I have used Microsoft
products going back many years. I have found their product to be
well integrated and thus easy to use between platforms. I can't
stand to think what can become of this good company and their
products if their adversaries have their way.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Vogt
MTC-00012047
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft litigatin
It is apparent that the original steps taken to pursue litigatin
against Microsoft was politically motivated. Microsoft has enabled
the ordinary individual to become com- puter competent. The various
programs developed have been a boom to users and to the economy. Any
punitive action would appear to smack of jealousy.
Somehow the entire process has done nothing but collapse the
computer industry. We hope that the case would be dropped, so the
public can continue to receive the kind of service which Microsoft
has been able to afford its customers, not to mention the many who
have benefitted from its charitable donations.
The Brisolara Family
MTC-00012048
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen or whoever it may concern:
It's high time to put the Microsoft suit and settlement to bed.
The current settlement perameters are fair to both sides. No more
court time or monies should be spent persuing more penalties against
Microsoft. Most states have agreed to the latest terms. What are the
other nine or so looking for? More bucks?
There are plenty more pressing items our federal and state
governments and politicians should be spending their time on.
MTC-00012049
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:42pm
Subject: DOJ SETTLEMENT FOR MICROSOFT
This is to strongly recommend that the proposed DOJ settlement
of the Microsoft litigation be upheld.
John Peoples
MTC-00012050
From: MIKE ESS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi, My name is Mike. I am 16 yrs old. Microsoft Corporation
should be required to include Java with Windows XP. I go to a chat
room called Wetbuster. Its for kids that wet the bed and have
wetting problems. Its a place to talk and cope about it. You need
Java to chat there, if there is no more Jave, then there no more
wetbuster. Also tns of people wont beable to chat there either if
you take it way. So please keep java. THANK YOU MIKE
MTC-00012051
From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern, I believe the settlement with Microsoft
is fair. Let's not waste any more time and money regarding this
issue. This is what stiffles free enterprise and a strong economy.
Let everyone get back to work on the important things.
MTC-00012052
From: Carole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
501 TidePointe Way #5118
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928-3053
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I support the Department of Justice's endeavors to settle the
Microsoft antitrust case. This case has dragged on for far too long,
and a rapid conclusion is in everyone's best interest.
The settlement agreement in its present form is quite
reasonable. The federal judge should approve the agreement, and all
parties should move forward. No further federal action is needed or
justified.
I am particularly impressed with the concessions Microsoft has
made in the interest of resolving the case. In essence, Microsoft is
making it easier for its competitors to compete. Microsoft's
concessions include the agreement to allow computer makers rights to
promote software other than Windows; the agreement to not retaliate
against software developers who promote software other than Windows;
and the commitment to not enter into contracts with retailers or
distributors to exclusively sell Windows technology, to name a few.
I appreciate your ongoing efforts to resolve this case.
Sincerely,
Carole Fowler
cc: Senator Strom Thurmond by snail mail
you also will receive a copy by snail mail
MTC-00012053
From: Margaret (038) Doug Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:42pm
Subject: Settlement
Will you please do the whole world a favor and drop these
charges? We don't need the same settlement we had with our phone
system years ago.
MTC-00012054
From: Richard W Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:43pm
Subject: SETTLE THE CASE
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. . . . . . WHY SHOULD THE WHOLE COUNTRY SUFFER
FOR THE WHIMS AND JEALOUSIES OF A FEW. . . . . . . . . AS I HAVE
STATED BEFORE, THIS IS A WORLD OF COMPETITION. . . .IF THOSE WHO ARE
WHINING ABOUT MICROSOFT WANT TO DO SOMETHING, LET THEM BUILD A
BETTER MOUSETRAP. . . . .
MTC-00012055
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:45pm
Subject: Please. .
To whom it may concern,
Please, support the settlement and stop wasting money.
Prevention is the key, learn from it and set up preventative
measures.
Sincerely,
Geoff Morrison??
God's judgment may not be immediate, but it is inevitable.
MTC-00012056
From: Erik N. Funk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
Please record this citizen's petition to let the market decide
the fate of Microsoft. . . this will allow the Justice Department
to focus its considerable energy on people who and corporations that
have actually done something wrong besides facilitate development of
standards and make great software.
Best regards,
Erik Funk
MTC-00012057
From: Charles Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 25533]]
Date: 1/15/02 8:48pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
I am retired from a successful partnership farming operation
with my Father and Brother which lasted 52 years; so you see I have
had a lot of experience. I own a personal computer and have had
several programs in it and the one I like best, which I was not
forced to buy is Microsoft. I think they are a very brilliant and
advanced company. I think that since a majority of the states
involved in the litigation against Microsoft have elected to settle
the suit, I think the remaining states should settle also.
The settlement would be good for the economy and for our Nation.
Thank You for a ``voice'' in this important litigation.
Charles R. Barrett
[email protected]
MTC-00012058
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please install JAVA in there XP
operating softwear
Hi
My name is Jason, I go to a support chatroom for kids that uses
Java softwear
Microsoft has taken the Java softwear out of its XP computer
softwear. Without the Java in the XP format that means other kids
who dont have it cant get support from support chatrooms. Please
consider having them put it back in their XP format so that adults
and kids can get support online. Thank you
MTC-00012059
From: TOM (038) SUE PONTIUS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:51pm
Subject: Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft case, it is fair to all but most
importantly the consumer!
Tom and Sue Pontius
Mariemont, Ohio
MTC-00012060
From: Arcilla, Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I strongly agree with the proposed Microsoft settlement. I
question the motives of the nine states that refuse to join in the
settlement. Is it a coincidence that these states are the home to
some of Microsoft's rivals? Obviously not. I hope these non-joining
states are looking out for consumers and not for Microsoft's
competition.
I use Microsoft products and I also have a choice on what to
install on my computers. I also use Linux, StarOffice from Sun, and
a host of other non-Microsoft products. Consumers always had a
choice.
This settlement should come to fruition. The non-joining states
should reconsider.
Sincerely,
Ryan Arcilla
MTC-00012061
From: Michael A Waller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust settlement
To whom it may concern. . . .
I believe that the Microsoft settlement is fair.
It's time that the DOJ realizes that Microsoft makes a greater
contribution to the world of technology and the overall growth of
our economy than the negative impact of their aggressive practices.
I am in favor of the DOJ accepting the settlement and stopping the
remainder of litigious actions in play.
Get on with life. There are bigger fish to fry.
Regards,
Michael A. Walter
25 Lexington Road
South Barrington, IL 60010
MTC-00012062
From: Deborah Kaplan Clancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft vs DOJ case has gone on long enough and wasted
enough taxpayer money. I think and thought the case should have been
dropped long ago. But, since that is not what happened, I implore
you for a speedy resolution.
It's time to end this lawsuit.
I believe Microsoft DOES have the interests of the consumers at
heart and believe this company should be left to do what it does
best--create software. Because of Microsoft technology many
companies are able to run their businesses better and faster.
The DOJ should move on to more important matters.
Sincerely,
Deborah Kaplan Clancy
MTC-00012063
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's put an end to the hounding of Microsoft, easily the most
innovative and influential company of the last decade. As a computer
geek (but not part of Microsoft), I was in the business when there
were literally dozens of brands of personal computers, each with
their own operating system and software. IBM's open architecture and
Microsoft's DOS and Windows operating system put an end to the
chaos. Microsoft's Office and email have become such a standard that
it would be difficult to imagine a modern company without them. I
also believe that the suit against Microsoft was the beginning of
the stock market downturn. Yes, Microsoft has become a large
company. Yes, Microsoft has zealosly positioned itself as the market
leader. Yes, Microsoft's Windows is now the world standard and has
become one of the great American success stories. Microsoft should
be allowed to continue it's journey unshackled by excessive
regulation. Please, allow them the ``Freedom to Innovate''.
Thanks,
Mac Salfen
Arlington, Texas
MTC-00012064
From: jsb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:I would urge you stongly to approve the
microsoft settlement!!!Microsoft provides real jobs to our country
which are desperately needed.To continue this costly litigation
under the guise of faciltating competition is a sham on our
country.I am a hard working citizen and its time to end this
horrible litigation to help out other competitors.
If these competors cant make a better product that is there
problem.Thanks for your consideration.
MTC-00012065
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The provisions of the agreement in the Microsoft settlement are
tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the
findings of Court of Appeals ruling. Consumers, including myself,
overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is good for us and the
American economy, and we, overwhelmingly, want to move beyond this
litigation. Yet 9 state's attorney generals refuse to listen to the
citizens they serve, and refuse to accept the settlement.
It is long past time to take whatever action is necessary to get
them on board and move on (a 2x4, maybe)! This process has gone way
past helping the public, and is now actually doing harm. Thank you,
Harvey Knuth 160 Regency Dr Conway, SC 29526
MTC-00012066
From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Please, enough is enough. Within the last thirty days I had sent
an email to you folks praising you on coming to an agreement
concerning Microsoft. Again I believe the settlement to be fair to
all parties and now we must move on.
Please do all possible to bring this case to a swift close.
Regards,
W. G. Williams
MTC-00012067
From: Donald E. Olsby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To all concerned. Would you please take the offer Microsoft has
put on the table. It may serve you well to get out and about to
realize how much Microsoft has helped our children. I am unable to
understand how people are so selfish to deny our children the vast
spectrum of the best and most innovative software in the world------
------for FREE ! They have to be self serving !! If it so important
to hurt Microsoft in some way take them out behind the barn and slap
them with a wet noodle. Thank God for Bill Gates and family that
shares wealth like no other family---------and for the children not
the ``The States'' with there hands out to use it where?// Donald E.
Olsby, Carol M. Olsby, Cynthia A. Olsby, Dean E. Olsby, Daniel S.
Olsby, David E. Olsby, just another American family that knows the
``RIGHT THING TO DO''=Settle Now!!!!! Go Microsoft
[[Page 25534]]
Corporation they
can't take your brains away!!
Donald E.Olsby
MTC-00012068
From: Marge Moe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
This case should be settled immediately, it has gone on far too
long. I suspect the only reason is to get more money from Microsoft.
Please settle this so we can continue to receive the benefits of
Microsoft's innovation.
MTC-00012069
From: charles jantho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
IT IS MY SINCERE AND EARNEST OPINION THAT THE MICROSOFT SUIT BE
SETTLED IN ITS' FAVOR IN THE MAJOR PART AND IMPLEMENTED AT THE
EARLIEST DATE.
THANK YOU,
CHARLES ROBERT JANTHO
133 WELCOME ALLEY
BALTIMORE, MD. 21201
MTC-00012070
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not own Microsoft Stock, but I use their products. No, I
depend on their products and I also need their updates and
innovation to continually improve the way things work for me. I do
not support the concept that Microsoft has done anything wrong.
Rather, I feel that they are being penalized simply for being
successful at doing what they do.
Please do not take any punitive action toward them; rather,
please reward them for their important contributions to our
productivity and enjoyment of life.
Sincerely,
B. Richard Bowersox
A long-term resident of Ohio.
MTC-00012071
From: Malini Balakrishnan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I believe that the Micrsoft case should be settled as quickly a
spossible, and that the current setlement agreement is fair to all
parties concerned.
Malini Balakrishnan
MTC-00012072
From: Ben Vega
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get on with it. Have you not caused this Company enough
unwarranted grief? Or do you think that prolonging the fiasco will
serve to get your brain addled fifteen minutes of fame?
MTC-00012073
From: KATHIE MC CLURE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
It is my opinion that the Antitrust Settlement that was made
with Microsoft should be upheld in the interest of the economy and
the furtherance of technology. I believe that the economy will
suffer even more if the Microsoft case is not settled and goes back
to court, especially in light of the events of September 11, 2001
and the war against terrorism. Thank you,
Sincerely,
Kathie L. McClure
MTC-00012074
From: Georgie Seitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft is responsible for creating millions of jobs.
At a time when our economy is so poor, we need to get companies
like Microsoft back to work full time and out of the court system.
The longer this trial continues the more our economy will suffer.
Millions of Americans have already lost their jobs, and millions
more will lose them soon if there is not a spark of hope to ignite
the economy and the consumer confidence.
People will not spend, if they are in fear of losing their jobs
or worst yet, if they have already lost their jobs. Let's get on
with it and let one of the leading forces of our economy lead us out
of this recession before it turns into a depression. We do not have
anytime to waste, this case must be settled immediately. Microsoft
and Bill Gates should be given a medal of honor and the fact that
there has been an antitrust suite brought against them is total
ridiculous. The most important consideration today is getting
America back to work, getting Americans to spend money, and getting
the economy back to normal. There are not many corporation left that
can clearly lead the way in doing this, but Microsoft can and has
done so before. If we waste any more time, they may lose the
momentum to spark a resurgence and that would be devastating to us
all.
A settlement to the states would result in little more than the
outcome of the tobacco settlement. The only winners were the states
who frivolously have spent the settlements on everything other than
what the money was intended for. Is that the governments intent here
too? I implore you to settle this case so Microsoft can continue to
make the strides it has in the past by creating a competitive
environment with new technologies which create jobs for us all.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Georgie Seitz
Certified Senior Consultant
IBM Global Services--USA
27 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
Phone: 908-931-4918
e-fax: 707-313-2433
Email: [email protected]
God Bless America. God Bless the US Troops.
MTC-00012075
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
Let Microsoft get back to developing more programming options
rather than spending time and money on court fights. Until Windows
came along computers were only for people who had time, money and
energy to learn intense programming. Microsoft opened it up to the
whole world.
Bonnie Magure
MTC-00012076
From: Laverne Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How can you possibly delay the Microsoft Settlement? It appears
to me that too much has been made of a successful company that takes
care of its employees and the other companies that Microsoft works
with in the daily operation.
If you have so much time and money to spend please spend it on
companies that take advantage of its employees and the other
companies should be important to its day to day operation. Please
settle with Microsoft as soon as possible and let them get on with
what they do best. Make products that a tremendous number of United
States citizens are very pleased to have at their fingertips.
MTC-00012077
From: Rita Silva--Home
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think this whole entire case against Microsoft is absurd &
should be dropped. In my humble opinion, Bill Gates came up with a
good idea or two, developed those ideas and marketed them. There are
those in the world who are jealous of his business skills and they
decided to wreak havoc on Microsoft. I am disappointed that our
judicial system would let this whole mess get so out of hand!
Rita F. Silva
8019 E. Troop Circle
Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
(928)772-2615--home
(928)442-5141--work
MTC-00012078
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe there should be a settlement. Enough already! Too much
time and money has been spent on this. Let Microsoft spend its
efforts creating its wonderful products for the consumer. Sandra
Brown
MTC-00012079
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
201 Freedom Court
Rockwall, Texas 75032
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
[[Page 25535]]
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
After three years I believe it is time to end the Microsoft
antitrust case. The settlement that you have reached with Microsoft
will end this case at least at the federal level. This settlement
represents the most viable solution to date in this case, and that
is should be put in place soon. Despite the contention by some that
this settlement is not hard enough against Microsoft this settlement
is fair and balanced. The settlement will end any contractual
restrictions Microsoft may have that could possibly harm
competitors. Furthermore Microsoft has agreed to share formerly
secret information with competitors so they will be able to place
their own programs on Microsoft's operating system. The only reason
to continue this case would be to satisfy those with anti Microsoft
bias, and this we should not do. This settlement will bring our
country back towards economic health, and for that reason it should
be supported. I do not want to see any more legal action taken
against Microsoft. Sincerely, Bryan Griesbach
MTC-00012080
From: June
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:05pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
PLEASE -SETTLE THIS SITUATION AND LET MICROSOFT DO IT'S JOB. DO
NOT WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD WITHOUT DRAGGING THIS THING
ANY FURTHER. WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR MONEY TOWARD SOMETHING
CONSTRUCTIVE. IF SOME ONE WANTS TO BUILD HIS OR HER POLITICAL FUTURE
LET THEM LOOK FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN MICROSOFT. LET THE AMBITIOUS
FOLKS AT MICROSOFT INVENT. AFTER ALL THEY DO IT BEST AND OTHERS WANT
TO PROFIT FROM IT. SO FAR THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN.
JUNE HUBER 701 14TH NE EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802
MTC-00012081
From: dgcj4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs:
This case has turned into another political,counter productive,
bad for the country's economy and spirit exercise that too often
occurs when soap boxes and greed are supported by competitors and
those who covet the success of others. This has gone on far too
long. Between a judge who used his position to most inappropriately
foster his personal and perhaps others' prejudices and the
politicians and lawyers who want to make many dollars by hiding
their greed behind the hollow statements of justice for the common
man , this case is an embarrassement to the country, our justice
system and common sense. The common man, with free choices, has
selected Microsoft products millions and millions of times-- I
suppose this would irritate a competitor. The ability of competitors
to have the government use my tax dollars and resources to do their
dirty work is disgusting. Having spoken to friends in other
countries, we are the laughing stock around the world for,
particularly in these times, forcing one of our most successful and
creative companys to defend itself against the bottomless well of
government. This certainly does represent me. There are many
millions of people who understand that Microsoft may at some point
played too hard ball in this highly competiive industry and some
reasonable price is to be paid, but thus far it has gone beyond
reason. We are not, and do not want a socialist government that
discourages ambition and incentive. Our government is supposed to
work for all people even those in business that work hard to grow
and keep people employed have not chosen to base themselves in any
number of other countries sho would be eager to have them. Settle
this thing now and reasonably. The sooner the better for both sides
and our country.
MTC-00012082
From: Karl Van Blankenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear U.S. Department of Justice, Please proceed with settling
the case with Microsoft. The United States has far more greater
issues that it needs to focus on rather than continuing to pursue
litigation against a U.S. company. I believe that the proposed
settlement is fair and just. Please let us focus on the other
pressing issues at hand to make this a better and safer place. Thank
you, Karl Van Blankenburg
MTC-00012083
From: AL FRODERBERG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:36pm
Subject: Settlement
It is time to settle this case--the attorneys general have
grandstanded long enough. I am tired of their political
machinations. End it!
MTC-00012084
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The Dept of Justice and all but nine states have spoken. The
Microsoft matter should now be settled as proposed. The actions of
the minority (9 states) should not be allowed to overrule the
actions of the majority. In these times of economic uncertainty, we
have better things to do with our energy and funds than to drag out
the Microsoft matter unnecessarily. H. Johnson, New Jersey
MTC-00012085
From: Edward W. Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop these never ending court cases. Settle the case and
let MicroSoft go back to making the software we all need and use.--
------------ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN
Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
MTC-00012086
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
My feelings on the remaining states holding out on the
settlement reached,is one of unbelief. Microsoft and its products
have never harmed me or anyone I know in any way whatsoever. For
these holdout states to not settle on this fair agreement is not in
anyones interest in this country. With the economy reeling and
taxpayers dollars being wasted on further litigation is crazy. This
company has done nothing but developed better products than the
competition, which has benefited me and not harmed me in any way. I
urge you to settle this litigation by accepting the tenative
agreement reached, so this country can move along with innovating.
Also this economy does not need anymore stumbling blocks. Thanks for
letting me share my thoughts on this very important matter. I hope
you choose to settle. Sincerely: Jeffrey D. Schmitt
MTC-00012087
From: Kenneth Bond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I would like to say how much Microsoft has added to my life by
providing programs and software that an older person like myself can
use and depend on and I think at a very reasonable price. I would
hate to see all the progress Microsoft has made be destroyed in
favor of competitor's that are trying to destroy Microsoft.
Microsoft has brought the whole world into the high tech arena which
has created millions of jobs and economic advances which will
probably lead to many more. So I say lets not kill this horse
because we have all benefited from it.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Bond
CC:Kenneth Bond
MTC-00012088
From: Larry Clason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:45pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
I respectfully request that the Department of Justice not appeal
the revised proposed settlement in the (Subject) case. I feel that
further contest of the legalities and punishments would be a further
waste of everyone's tax dollars--money that could be much better
spent by each one of us to increase the quality of life for
ourselves, our families, and our neighbors. Most sincerely,
Larry F. Clason
[email protected]
112 N. Mills Street, #207
Madison, Wisconsin 53715
MTC-00012089
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:47pm
Subject: Leave them alone.
It is my desire that you simply leave Microsoft alone. They have
done so much for
[[Page 25536]]
our world, the computer age, and advances beyond
belief. If they make money by doing so, then so what? Doesn't
evryone need money? On top of that, they are giving back to our
society, not only with unimaginable feats in techology, but through
monetary gifts as well. GO! MICROSOFT!! Let's clean out our own
closets, then maybe our views will be clearer. Peggy Youngblood
MTC-00012090
From: Paul Goetsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:46pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The time has come for all the states that are holding out to
either settle or have it done for them. We have spent too much time
and tax payers money already on a case that never should have
started to begin with. . Please get off the dime. PR Goetsch
MTC-00012091
From: Bob McDermott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please get off Bill Gate's back, & go catch some terrorists
instead!!!!
MTC-00012092
From: raven3001
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's sad with all the other things going on like the WTC,
recession, and war, that people are so petty that they think they
paid too much for a free browser. I think this anti-trust business
has gone on too long and costing the tax payers too much money. I
believe that this bogus lawsuit angst Microsoft is a bunch of money-
hungry, sleazy lawyers and showboating bureaucrats trying to justify
their existence.
Tired Of Hearing About small Petty Problems.
J. C. Oost.
MTC-00012093
From: Pat Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box 315
Belmont Street
Carbondale, PA 18407-0315
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
It is considerate of Microsoft, as the dominant source of
hardware and software, to open its doors to competitors. I realize
that they have been in an antitrust settlement with the U.S.
government for three years. So I am glad that they will have a fresh
new start in software development. One way that Microsoft is
providing their expertise in software development is by configuring
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs as well as
their own. The interim release of Windows XP will ensure that
computer makers, consumers, and software developers can promote non-
Microsoft software within Windows. Not only will this benefit the
computer manufacturers, but it will give choice to the consumers as
well.
I am glad that the leading American company in software
development will finally be released from the grip of this antitrust
settlement. Now Microsoft can focus on doing what they do best,
being innovative in software development. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Patrick Collins
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00012094
From: Victor Hoover Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whomever it may concern.
In my opinion, the legal action against Microsoft should never
have gone to court, but since it has, it should be settled quickly
with no further litigation's. I believe that court actions against
the corp. of Microsoft is not in the best interest of the public.
In contrast to what the competition would like the public to
believe, I believe that Microsoft has done more than any similar
business unit in making computer systems available, useful and
affordable.
Thanks
Victor Hoover
MTC-00012095
From: Stuart Thiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:00pm
Subject: Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK), etc.
This is my opinion on what I have read. I am 3rd year University
student in the field of Software Engineering and a part time
software consultant, software designer.
Regarding Sun's suggestions that the proposed civil action
against Microsoft: ***
1 Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that
Microsoft was found to have illegally protected;
2 Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology
community;
3 Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
4 Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
5 Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because
it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. ***
I have little/no information regarding the first point. I would
fully agree with the second point (being very interested in java
developement). I would agree with the 3rd point, espescially
considering Microsoft's habit of ignoring the majority of standards
and modifying existing systems (Javascript) just enough that they
have to be re-written to be IE specific (not to mention that they
feel renaming it to DHTML and calling it a new language fixes that.
. . ). I have some difficulty agreeing with the 4th point as it
clearly indicates in the proposed action that OEM and others may
remove icons of Microsoft stuff stated above and add non-Microsoft
software. I would agree with the enforcement issue. A firmer/clearer
stance should be taken regarding enforcement as Microsoft is large
enough to ignore tiny barbs.
With regards to the following sections of the proposed action
(not properly quoted, but still getting the main idea): ***
III.C.3
Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from
exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
* Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial boot
sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to or
disconnections from the Internet, any Non-Microsoft Middleware if a
Microsoft Middleware Product that provides similar functionality
would otherwise be launched automatically at that time, provided
that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on the desktop no
user interface or a user interface of similar size and shape to the
user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware
Product.
III.H.3
1. Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not (a)
automatically alter an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or
menu entries installed or displayed by the OEM pursuant to Section
III.C of this Final Judgment without first seeking confirmation from
the user and (b) seek such confirmation from the end user for an
automatic (as opposed to user-initiated) alteration of the OEM's
configuration until 14 days after the initial boot up of a new
Personal Computer. Microsoft shall not alter the manner in which a
Windows Operating System Product automatically alters an OEM's
configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries other than in a
new version of a Windows Operating System Product. ***
Section III.C.3 seems to be saying that Microsoft may restrict
OEMs from displaying a user interface completely dissimilar to that
of Microsoft software. This is very wrong in that Microsoft then has
control of the user interfaces developed, thus fortifying its
monopoly position. I may have misunderstood this section, it seems
ambiguous. I feel that it would be better to say that Microsoft has
no right to restrict OEMs from using any software based on the user
interface period.
Section III.H.3 has a section that states Microsoft software may
modify an OEM configuration without warning after 14 days from
initial boot-up. This is is clearly a bad idea. Whether 1 day, 14
days or 100 days from any point, software should not modify
configurations of other software without warning (when automatically
initiated) unless the original soft was intended to be updated in
that manner possibly with specific intent to be modified by the
modifying software exclusively or inclusively. Otherwise, we call
the modifying software a virus. The exception to this, is the
upgrading of OS or software that the modified software is based
upon, in which case automatic modification of the original
configuration should be allowed if it is necessary to continue the
proper
[[Page 25537]]
functionality of the software modified. Lastly, a clear
definition needs to be made as to what the modification of a
configuration is, as one could consider changing the order of icons
a change in configuration given the existing proposed action (which
would be false in my opinion).
Thank you.
Stuart Thiel
MTC-00012096
From: Bill Sharpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to accept the settlement in this case. No more
taxpayer's money needs to be wasted in pursing this litigation
further. Let the market and consumers control the fate of Microsoft,
not the courts.
William E. Sharpe
1 Silver Oak Court
Pooler, GA 31322
MTC-00012097
From: evelyn saunders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft SETTLEMENT
I AGREE WITH MICROSOFT. GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.
MTC-00012098
From: Al Wedekind
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get this settled and let Microsoft continue to do what
they do best and that is to satisfy their customers. We think they
are great!
MTC-00012099
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:09pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
As a citizen of the US and a stockholder of Microsoft, I urge
the Department of Justice to accept the terms of the settlement now
on the table. It is our taxpayer dollars that pays for the
litigation, it is our consumer dollars that pay for the products and
it is our brains that choose the products that we want. In a country
founded on the principals of equality and freedom, every company has
a clear, even playing field, but only a few rise to the top. This is
America, after all, and that is the reward of Democracy, but not of
Socialism. I thank God all our voices can be heard.
Lynda Wells
311 E. 72nd St.
NYC, NY 10021
MTC-00012100
From: Louis F. McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Without question, settlement of the Microsoft antitrust
litigation is in my best interest as well as the best interest of
the rest of those who use personal computers.
Louis F.McDonald
4250 Lansdowne Dr.
Atlanta, GA 30339-4615
(770) 434-3816
MTC-00012101
From: JOHN CAMPBELL
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JOHN CAMPBELL
5040 N DESERT TORTOISE PL
TUCSON, az 85745
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
leave microsoft to the marketplace.we consumers are are
perfectly capable of defending ourselves against predetory pricing
and price fixing.
Sincerely,
JOHN CAMPBELL
MTC-00012103
From: Blair Marsteller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:15pm
Subject: The settlement
Dear DOJ:
I believe the settlement pounded out which all but a few states
have signed is good. Microsoft should not be subjected to further
measures and the nine states should agree to the fair and reasonable
settlement the DOJ and the other states have produced. Say no to
further troubles and litigation. Let the reasonable settlement
stand.
Blair Marsteller
MTC-00012104
From: Zanetta Laskaris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been following the litigation of DoJ against Microsoft
for several years now, and as a concerned citizen I would like to
voice my opinion that it is in the public interest of consumers that
this case be settled as soon as possible rather than continue with
further litigation.
MTC-00012105
From: Wallace Greene (MSLI)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-A GOOD THING!
I am more than pleased that the United States Government has
come to a settlement agreement with Microsoft. Our country certainly
has more pressing matters than fighting an American company that we
should all be proud of. A company that is innovative and energetic,
to the benefit of so many.
Thank you
Wallace Greene
This communication is strictly private and contains confidential
information intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this
communication by parties other than the intended recipient(s) is
unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error and
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or action taken is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.
MTC-00012106
From: John Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:19pm
Subject: anti trust suit
When are politicians going to get it? They are not in business
to break all of us, they are going to far again and again. Tax
payers and our daily Joe Nobody are going to find a way to get
someone in office that will follow their lead and not what the
parties want!
John Manning
[email protected]
EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
MTC-00012107
From: Bill Mcilveen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:24pm
Subject: Why don't you just leave Microsoft alone. These attorney
generals should
Why don't you just leave Microsoft alone. These attorney
generals should concentrate on the problems of their own states.
Chasing deep pockets so they can spend additional money on state
pork projects (RE: Cigarette settlement) is a load of crap. The
American consumer is bright enough to make their own decisions. The
public would be better served if these guys would go after clowns
like ENRON. Must be all of the graft is gone at that point.
MTC-00012108
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:25pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement
I am not a developer, I am a home user of a PC. I am concerned
that Microsoft is starting to take advantage of not only the
industry, but the public at large. I have been informed that
Microsoft now has a mechanism in their Windows XP operating system
which sends the registry back to Microsoft if the system is
connected to the internet. Considering that I would guess that a
conservative 90% of the pc's are running Microsoft operating systems
and are connected to the internet, this is disconcerting to me. The
registry includes everything about the hardware, the software you
run, whether it be Microsoft applications or not and information
about each user of the system. This is not only an unfair advantage
for Microsoft in the marketspace, but an invasion of privacy. I know
that not many systems are running Windows XP at this time, but that
will change as Microsoft stops distributing and supporting Windows
98 and ME.
Please consider this while deciding what is fair to the American
public.
Kindest regards,
Glenn Phillips
MTC-00012109
From: Shuryl A Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settement
Department of Justice;
[[Page 25538]]
My family along with many friends, beg you to vote in favor of
Microsoft. We admire Microsoft for everything they stand for. The
courts and their completion may see Mr. Bill Gates as a Butt head,
but we the people view him as a Great businessperson, who created
great, jobs, serves not only his community but contributes large
amounts of money to many great causes throughout the world. Again,
we sincerely beg the courts not to destroy Microsoft,one of the
greatest corporations in America today.
Shuryl A. Potter
MTC-00012110
From: Keith Bingaman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith A. Bingaman
119 Main Street
Lykens, Pennsylvania 17048
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to see the Microsoft antitrust case settle as soon
as possible. I do not believe this case should have been brought
against Microsoft in the first place. It is in the best interest of
everyone that the Court approves the settlement as soon as possible.
Microsoft has really gone far beyond what should be expected of them
in the interest of bringing this case to a close. They have taken
steps to make their servers operable with those of its competitors.
They have also agreed not to impose any contractual restrictions on
third parties that will require them to exclusively distribute or
promote Microsoft products. These types of concessions will help
ensure that no antitrust laws are violated. Settling this case will
benefit the technology industry and consumers alike. Thank you for
your efforts to bring this case to its resolution.
Sincerely,
Keith Bingaman cc: Senator Rick Santorum Representative George
W. Gekas
MTC-00012111
From: mdonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to put this to rest for good and Finally.
Miriam E Donaldson m
[email protected]
MTC-00012112
From: Jesse Stence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please settle the Microsoft problem by helping the schools soon.
Sincerely Jesse Stence
MTC-00012113
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:30pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
I am writing to inform you that hearing of your decision to
settle with Microsoft brought me relief and pleasure .Our nation has
endured enough of this and this settlement is a fair one. It is time
to move on to more pressing issues .
The complaintants should be thrilled with the concessions
Microsoft has made and allo should look forward to putting their
energies to the most productive causes.
I urge you to promote and support this settlement and end this
litigation.Thank You.
Brian Grimm 8 Apache Drive Englishtown,New Jersey
MTC-00012114
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern:
Please settle this litigation as soon as possible.
Marianne Montrose
MTC-00012115
From: WIN B ENDERS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Stop this endless and expensive litigation once and for all.
Microsoft is the goose that lays golden eggs for our economy. Don't
kill it!
win enders
MTC-00012116
From: Walt Statkiewicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Firstly, it was the consumer who gave Microsoft the monopoly
through its choice of purchases when there was competition. Through
their choice, the consumer essentially voted for a Microsoft
dominant environment to simplify their computing needs. Without this
populous consent, the consumer would be left to determine on their
own whether some new software and / or hardware would work properly
with their system. This is sometimes difficult for the experts let
alone the individual who only wants to send and print emails.
The consistency standards enabled the productivity gains of the
consumers and fostered the growth of the American economy for the
past ten years. The point here is that it was an active choice by
the consumer and not a situation that only Microsoft could push
their products down the consumer's throats. When the decision by the
consumer was being made, alternatives were available that offered
similar environments (e.g., IBM's OS2, Apple Computer's Macintosh,
etc.). At that date in time, one could hardly argue that Microsoft
was too large for someone like IBM to challenge. Yet Microsoft did
challenge IBM and enabled innovation and productivity gains that
formed the foundation for much of today's computing technology.
Microsoft learns from its markets what the users desire, works
at making the changes that users desire, and has become dependable
at issuing updates that users desire. Without these three things,
many people might recommend other software, but the other companies
either do not or cannot provide these things which businesses depend
upon. Indeed, many companies are having trouble maintaining their
businesses because the competition is fierce and hard to deal with.
Not because there is only one competitor (i.e., Microsoft) and you
can't compete against them. Companies such as Adobe compete with
Microsoft all the time and have been doing so for many years.
You will note that Adobe follows the same things listed above as
prerequisites for success: they learn from their markets what the
users desire, they work at making the changes that users desire, and
they are dependable at issuing updates that users desire. In other
words, these companies provide comfort for the users and the future
of computing.
These are the notions that consumers use to make sure their work
get's done. The essence of the arguments presented here is that the
consumers are the ones who drive the industry and whenever
innovation occurs, the consumers decide based on a set of business
rules whether a company can compete or not. To think otherwise would
be to deny that business and consumers are some idealists that have
no justifications for their actions and can simply be manipulated
through mass marketing. Such people would not survive for very long
in today's fast paced global economy.
Walter R. Statkiewicz
218 Sivia St.
N. Cape May, NJ, 08204
MTC-00012117
From: kitsten matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:40pm
Subject: SETTELMENT.
January 14, 2002
It make me very angry that ``The Justice Department'' continues
to keep Microsoft in the courts. How many years does it take? How
much does Microsoft have to give up? Remember this is the land of
the free and where everyones dreams can come true, except when you
don't like someone. It got so out of hand during ``The Clinton
Administration'' Microsoft is a huge player in our economy and
everyone knows what happened when Janet Reno and Co. went after
them. Not many companies would be able to survive the length of time
you have kept Microsoft in the courts.
I would like to see the Justice Department go after fraud in the
Government with as much determination as it has gone after
Microsoft.
SETTLE THIS SUIT!
Sincerely, Kirsten Matson
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
Click Here
MTC-00012118
From: Robert Grauel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to settle the Microsoft antitrust case and move on. I
fear greed is getting in the way of the good judgement of nine
attorneys general.
[[Page 25539]]
MTC-00012119
From: Frank Harmuth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not appeal the Microsoft Settlement.
Frank D. Harmuth
1128 Sweet Spot Circle
Morrisville, NC 27560
e-mail addressd: [email protected]
MTC-00012120
From: hayho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do what is best for the economy and settle the suits
against Microsoft.
Thanks
MTC-00012121
From: Lloyd McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, The United States government needs to request Microsoft
to maintain a data base of all bugs in Microsoft products and
Microsoft fairly compensate people who discover any bugs in
Microsoft products. The United States government needs to increase
the punishment against Microsoft.
[email protected]
MTC-00012122
From: Byron Stavrou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please quit punishing Microsoft. There is enough trouble in this
world. Let's let one of our economy's strongest influences help
right the ship. Market forces will dictate Microsoft's future.
Byron Stavrou
MTC-00012123
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
PLEASE SETTLE THIS REDICULOUS ASSAULT ON THE BEST INNOVATIVE
INSTITUTION IN THE USA (THAT WILL BE ATTACKED BY FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS) BY AGREEING WITH THE MICROSOFT APPROACH TO ENDING THE
LITIGATION AND MAKING MICROSOFT THE AMERICAN ANSWER TO THE 21ST
CENTURY REGARDING COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND AMERICAN SURVIVAL IN THIS
GLOBAL ECONOMY--
FRANCIS A. L'ESPERANCE.JR. M.D.
MTC-00012124
From: KATHLEEN JENKINS
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
KATHLEEN JENKINS
3315 CR 762
JONESBORO, AR 72401
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement: The lawsuit against Microsoft was a
stupid waste of our tax dollars. And it harmed investors in the
high-tech industry, without giving us any benefit in return. It is
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending, to be ended.
Consumers need to see competition in the marketplace, rather than in
the courtroom. Competition creats better goods and services for the
consumers, and MicrosSoft has done a great job of giving us what we
want and need, at ever better prices. Let's get our government out
of the business of stifling progress and tying the hands of
corporations.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Jenkins
MTC-00012125
From: charles jantho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
IT IS MY SINCERE AND EARNEST OPINION THAT THE MICROSOFT SUIT BE
SETTLED IN ITS' FAVOR IN THE MAJOR PART AND IMPLEMENTED AT THE
EARLIEST DATE.
THANK YOU,
CHARLES ROBERT JANTHO
133 WELCOME ALLEY
BALTIMORE, MD. 21201
MTC-00012126
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen, we have spent far to long on thwarting microsoft from
moving forward with their innovations and resulting benefits to we
consumers. The products that microsoft developed has enhanced my
life significantly and at a price which I feel is fair. Continuing
this case further only makes the lawyers in this country richer and
we consumers/tax payers poorer financially and intelectually. Lets
settle the bloody case and get on with life. yours truly.
Harold P. Camicia
MTC-00012127
From: Bernard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let us end the farce of competitors trying to enrich themselves
with the Governments help. Microsoft has done no harm to anyone. It
has helped us tremendously.
The others can whine and cry and try and to tare Microsoft down
for their own benefit. Please don't help them.
Help Microsoft!
End this Now!
Thank you,
B Gert Hollin
MTC-00012128
From: Edgar Gallardo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the United States Department of Justice:
In light of the ruling handed down by the court finding
Microsoft guilty of monopolizing several aspects of software and
operating systems, I wish to voice my hopes that your agency will
punish the corporation.
Fines and token apologies are not enough in my opinion,
especially considering the vast amounts of revenue that the company
has produced along with the powerful grip over countless businesses,
home owners, even school districts. Significant restraints and
reprimands should be levied against the large corporation.
An idea gaining large acceptance within the technological
community would be to standardize the Windows API code, which I
believe would be a great step towards ensuring a more competitive
market. Intellectual property is important and quite cherished in
our society, but it is because of the great value placed on it that
it must be the source of punishment for Microsoft.
Considering the vast resources the company has at its disposal,
fines and lawsuits are hardly going to prevent or even hinder their
continued stranglehold on the market they so obviously dominate.
Your duty is to prosecute those who violate the laws of the
United States of America. If Microsoft was a first time offender,
leniency would obviously come into play. However, they are in fact
repeat offenders that have blatantly broken and scoffed at the laws
in place to protect the greater population of society. I implore
your agency to protect the consumers and competitors of Microsoft
and force them to cooperate within our capitalist economy. We are
driven by competition and market sharing, it is the core of our
society. You are the best hope for society to topple the juggernaut.
MTC-00012129
From: jmorris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:00pm
Subject: Enough is Enough
Why do we allow the Anti Trust action against Microsoft to drag
on after it aws settled? You have made a deal to punish them and
that's enough. The States continuing anti-trust action IMO have an
anti business agenda or get a very successful business at any costs.
Microsoft did wrong, got punishment and it's way past the time to
move on.
MTC-00012130
From: ed barry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle this matter as soon as possible. The only beneficiaries
to ongoing litigation are the lawyers.
Respectfully,
Edward L. Barry
MTC-00012131
From: Ron Authier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those involved; It is time to agree on this settlement and
move on to other matters much more important to the taxpayers of
this country.
[[Page 25540]]
Yours truly,
Ronald G. Authier
23 Cote Rd
Monson, Ma 01057-9763
MTC-00012132
From: Bernard H
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this, Now!
Microsoft should not be hurt to help Competitors who want to
enrich themselves with the Governments help. Myself, my Companies
all are very happy with our Microsoft Products. We wont even do
business with the sniveling cowards who want the Government to
enrich them by tearing down Microsoft. So please stop this now. More
important things need to be dealt with.
MTC-00012133
From: Bill Marshfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:05pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
I for one do not understand why the Federal Government wants to
meddle around in private business when they can not even run the
Government. What makes them think that they know how to run a
business. If anyone of them could they would be in business where
they would control their own destiny, not sponging off of the people
of the United States. If these other companies cannot compete then
they should get out of the business.
As I heard the other day. From the Democrats point of view it is
scandalous for the White House to let Enron go under but OK for the
House and Senate to attempt to put Microsoft out of business. Fed's
leave Microsoft alone and let them do their business the way they
know how.
William E. Marshfield
20 Fox Glove Ct.
Reno, NV 89511
MTC-00012134
From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:06pm
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As a consumer I feel Microsoft has damaged, prevented and
delayed innovation in the computer industry. Microsoft's dominance
(technical monopoly) severely limits competition and innovation.
Even though I am a member of the Microsoft Freedom to Innovate
Network, I still feel changes must be brought about to promote the
growth and innovation that Microsoft's monopoly position is
limiting. I don't feel I can give a adequate description of the
complex and integrated relations within the technical industry and
computer technique itself in this email. but as a consumer I urge
the justice department to act to limit Microsoft's control of the
software marketplace. I don't know if I should list the blue screen,
Dr. Watson, crashes, of other issues. I don't know if the recent
``market control'' exhibited with the release of XP and ``2000''
product version has been presented in this case. If not please let
me present a consumer who is being forced to ``choice Microsoft''
not because the products are good, but because they are the only
ones available, because ``Microsoft owns the market place.
I can't resist giving one example in a recent book published by
Microsoft Press ``Microsoft Visio Version 2002 Inside Out'' by
Nanette J. Eaton; ISBN 0-7356-1285-4. On page 11 under the title
``Features Deleted from Visio'' . . .some tools, . . .have been
removed from Visio 2002 . . . In some cases, Microsoft plans to make
an add-on or tool available as a download . . . In general Microsoft
has consolidated it's control. While Microsoft speaks of it's
innovation, most is not all Microsoft's products and ideas were
copied from a want-to-be competitor or bought. Apple, SUN, Netscape
all are reminisces of good companies now playing second fiddle in
Microsoft land. If this includes breaking the company up, making the
core code open source, I can't say, but one or more activities
should be implemented. Please continue with the case against
Microsoft, don't let Microsoft buy of the government. The justice
department is the last hope.
Thank you
Keith Elkin
Keith Elkin
1800 Beech CT
Frederick, MD 21701.
SN 229-62-4368
MTC-00012135
From: ateepee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
May I urge you to settle the Microsoft case as soon as is
possible. From my viewpoint, Microsoft has provided great benefit to
the consumer, and all the anti-trust actions are a grave injustice
to Microsoft. I am convinced that the growth of the PC market and
business is largely due to the fact that Microsoft provided a
'standard' software which enabled all of us to work on the same
wave-length. Let's continue to have America reward those that
provide the most benefit to the nation---not arbitrarily reduce
everyone to the 'lowest common denominator'.
Thank you.
T. P. Higgins,
MTC-00012136
From: maryasara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
So settle it already.
MTC-00012137
From: Glenn Sproule
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:09pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
It is my opinion that the antitrust suite should be settled
without further investigation or delay in which would be in the best
interests of the consumers.
W.G.Sproule MD
California
CC:GLENN SPROULE
MTC-00012138
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I believe it is in the public interest that all government
entities drop their current law suits against Microsoft. Our
government, both state and federal, should not prosecute and
persecute people and organizations for being successful. If they
have violated the law; then enforce the law. If they have not; then
get the governments hand and the lawyers hands out of their pocket.
Respectfully,
Marvin L. Orr
P.O. Box 63
Moreland, Idaho 83256
MTC-00012139
From: Kathryn Mills
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathryn Mills
3275 West 128 St.
Cleveland, OH 44111
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
It is time that we put the litigation against Microsoft to rest.
Enough of the taxpayers' dollars have been squandered. This trial
must be over. The marketplace, not the courtroom, should now decide
how Microsoft performs. We need to unshackle Microsoft so that they
can again be innovative and creative in the hi-tech economy . . .
moving freely and competitively. The consumers need it . . . the
investors certainly need to know that the hi-tech industry is again
on steady ground.
Let America do what America does best in the marketplace . . .
allow an economy to grow freely and creatively . . . . this will not
happen if we continue to drag this company, and others, through the
courts. Enough is enough!
Sincerely,
Kathryn C. Mills
MTC-00012140
From: Rick Girdner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am sure everyone is hammering you guys over the Microsoft
settlement. My main concern is that the way Microsoft wants to pay
their debt to society is through a giant sales campaign to the
schools. I am so tired of people in Washington doing crappy jobs on
every front, then saying they are doing it for the good of the
CHILDREN. This is the wrong settlement for America. Have their
executives go out and pick up trash if they want to do some real
good things, but do not let them infiltrate the schools with sales
pitches.
Thank you,
[[Page 25541]]
Rick Girdner,
Concerned Taxpayer
MTC-00012141
From: Tracy Pipkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
Please break up the Microsoft monopoly . . . . as an IT
professional, they have caused much grief over the last 10-15 years.
Thanks.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00012142
From: Arsenio Calle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For the good of the Us and of our economy I humbly ask that this
case be settled as soon as possible. The Us needs less litigation
and more innovation to get the economy going again. This litigation
is only helpeing the economy of the lawyers involved in the case.
Respectfully,
Arsenio Calle
MTC-00012143
From: Bob Condie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11'18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've been involved with the computer days since its inception.
Let Microsoft play in the free market. There products are great and
have set the standard and platform for the future that no other
company could have. Others can compete with the latest and greatest
technology.
Bob Condie
Executive Director of Engineering
(303) 652-3464
MTC-00012144
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I believe that this matter ought to be settled immediately. It
is a drain on the economy, and if one polled the many millions of
users of msft products, I believe it would be difficult to justify
that we were overcharged for an operating system that we freely
chose (over Apple or Linux), and that we use every day, with
additional features added at no extra charge. I still remember that
I had to forgo getting Netscape because I did not want to spend
hundreds of extra dollars--in the end, I got it free from msft.
MTC-00012145
From: Warren Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough litigation already! Settle the Microsoft suit and let's
get back to the business of innovation. This was never about the
interests of the consumer but only about the pathetic attempt of
competitors to do in the court room what they couldn't do in the
market place. As I believe the secretary of the US Treasury said of
the Enron collapse: That's the genius of the free market system; you
have winners and losers. In this case, only sore losers who
convinced enough people so that years later we're still suffering
the effects of this ill timed and poorly managed suit. Witness the
collapse of the high tech market. We, the consumers of high tech
goods and services, are the losers.
Best wishes,
Rev. Warren F. Taylor
607 E Mulberry Ave
Porterville, CA 93257
559-781-0266 the
So we row on . . . boats against the current-- f. scott
fitzgerald
MTC-00012146
From: Steve T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam.
My name is Steve Tripp, and I live in a small town in Iowa and
work at a local ISP. I will not pretend to know the legal minutia of
the case, but have been keeping abreast of the situation through
online news and newsgroups. I have used Microsoft products at work,
not because they are the best or even good, but because there is no
other choice. The software market did not start out as a monopoly,
and the best man did not win. But as someone who works with
computers every day, and would even if I did not get paid for it, I
know who the losers are. . . we are. What truly amazes me is
watching supposed experts debate whether or not Microsoft as a
monopoly has hurt the industry. As a Network/Internet technician in
Algona, Iowa I deal with Microsoft products every day at work, but
will not have them in my home. I know they have hurt the industry,
and I know their products are not the best that could be on the
market. The Microsoft stranglehold on OS and application software
needs to be relaxed, and Microsoft will not do so on its own.
Thank you for your time.
Steve Tripp
505 N. Main St.
Algona, IA 50511
MTC-00012147
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not appeal.
MTC-00012148
From: Curtis Killorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention: Renata B. Hesse
I wish to comment concerning the up-coming settlement of the
corporation of Microsoft. Under the federal law of the Tunney Act, I
believe I have this right. In my thirty years as a working tax
paying citizen I have never had a good experience with the products
of Microsoft, my exposure is as follows:
I was a Composition Manager for the largest publication company
in central Colorado for six years and found the software to be
cumbersome and very difficult to carry out our daily work load
without the constant problems which seemed to be inherent with this
product. As technology progressed and the internet become much more
important, our work load and complexity doubled. The experience of
networking servers and work stations together with Microsoft
programs required constant maintenance and a continual bills for
technical support and training.
As a owner of the largest restaurant in Chaffee county,
Colorado, I have inherited a point of sales system which runs on
Microsoft. I have spent over $120,000 on a networked system which is
at best faulty and at the worst useless. This system has been the
source of constant frustration. The system promises great efficiency
and productivity to help enhance the work load of a restaurant, but
in turn has become the signal largest liability we have to contend
with.
On a personal note: All the talk of Microsoft has been that they
the ``great innovators'' and ``revolutionary designers'', well, I
just don't see it. If this settlement allows Microsoft to ``give''
their leftover products to our children, Microsoft will only be
given an even greater advantage to propagate their product. Here's
an idea: why not have Microsoft pay Apple to give their new iMacs to
the poorest schools in America.
Curtis Killorn
Owner
[email protected]
Check us out on-line @ www.windmillonline.com
The Windmill Restaurant
720 E. Rainbow Blvd.
Salida, CO 81201
719-539-3594 fx 719-539-3479
MTC-00012149
From: Simon Selitser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a consumer and as a developer I do not believe that proposed
final judgment (by DOJ and nine states) is in a public interest. I
believe that this settlement will do little to restore competition
or prevent Microsoft from monopoly behavior. Far more reaching in
preventing Microsoft from abusing its monopoly are remedies proposed
by nine states and District of Columbia and, if adapted, will
protected the public interest.
Simon I. Selitser, Ph.D.
President,
TimeDomain CVD, Inc.
470 Division St.
Campbell, CA 95008
MTC-00012150
From: Ray Hix
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Hix
209 W Troy Street
Dothan, Al 36303
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a
[[Page 25542]]
serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ray Hix
MTC-00012151
From: Stan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don't you think you have spent enough of the tax payers hard
earned money.
It is time to settle.
Stanley R. Kneppar
8109 Hibiscus Circle
Tamarac, Florida 33321-2134
(954) 720-0413
MTC-00012152
From: R. Ronald Corbett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
R. Ronald Corbett
231 SE 45th Terrace
Ocala, Fl 34471
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
It's time to leave Microsoft alone, to allow that big company to
get back to producing good products and creating jobs for the
American workers. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars
and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
Consumers should see competition in the marketplace, rather than the
courtroom.
Most Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like
Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating
better products for consumers, instead of wasting valuable resources
on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
R. Ronald Corbett
MTC-00012153
From: Cy Rayburn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cy Rayburn
p o Box 83
Gibbon , NE 68840
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Cy Rayburn
MTC-00012154
From: Ken DeJonge
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ken DeJonge
2911 52nd SW.,
Grandville, MI 49418
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely, Ken DeJonge
MTC-00012155
From: Jane Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Smith
27259 Hedge Rd
Albemarle, NC 28001
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jane Smith
MTC-00012156
From: Karl Hanson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karl Hanson
[[Page 25543]]
76 Drew Ave.
Manchester, NH 03104
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Karl Hanson
MTC-00012157
From: Don Bates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: Having been a Microsoft Windows
user for over a decade, I would like to take a moment to go on
record supporting the recent settlement reached between Microsoft
and the Department of Justice. In my opinion Microsoft has been a
target of unfair criticism over the years. Sure, as a Windows user
I've had my share of headaches but I feel that overall the product
is reasonably priced and a valuable addition to my lifestyle. I am
pleased that the three-year-old antitrust suit against Microsoft is
now over and being put to rest.
You are well aware of the terms of the settlement where
Microsoft agreed to not enter into any agreements forcing any third
party to distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively.
Personally, I'm pleased to see that Microsoft is being forced to
turn over intellectual property to its competitors. This allows for
software that is more compatible with Windows to be produced and
allows for competition.
All in all, I am happy with the settlement because it is going
to be beneficial to the American economy, the tech industry, and
competition and in the end the consumer.
Sincerely,
Donald Bates,
Cincinnati, Ohio
MTC-00012158
From: Kenneth Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Brown
PO Box 234
Windermere, Fl 34786
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W Brown
MTC-00012159
From: Lynn Sant
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lynn Sant
P.O. Box 329
Preston, ID 83263-0329
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lynn Sant
MTC-00012160
From: Ted Piatt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ted Piatt
3403 Fox Lake Rd.
Wooster, Oh 44691
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ted Piatt
MTC-00012161
From: David S
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David S Campbell
Vanceboro, NC 28586-8055
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a
[[Page 25544]]
serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Steve Campbell
MTC-00012162
From: G. MARIC
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
G. MARIC
113 Crestwood Avenue
Branchburg, NJ 08876-3911
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
G. Maric
MTC-00012163
From: Robert Cave
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Cave
4953 B Ave
Marcus, IA 51035-7009
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Cave
MTC-00012164
From: David Houk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Houk
217 Cedarwood Dr.
Madison, In 47250
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David Houk
MTC-00012165
From: John Gerber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Gerber
698 S. Cscade Dr.
Woodburn, OR 97071-3022
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John Gerber
MTC-00012166
From: David Tiry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Tiry
217 May St.
Rockland, Wi 54653
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
[[Page 25545]]
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David Tiry
MTC-00012167
From: William Peteet
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Peteet
2024 Fordham
Denton, Tx 76201
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
William Peteet
MTC-00012168
From: John Mackey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mackey
3520 Scenic Dr
Redding, Ca 96991
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John E Mackey
MTC-00012169
From: Susan Blevins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Blevins
P.O. Box 162
Nashville, GA 31639
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Susan Blevins
MTC-00012170
From: Willis Gray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Willis Gray
2218 Graystone Drive
Sumter, SC 29150
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Willis T. Gray
MTC-00012171
From: John Giesey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Giesey
203 Galway Dr.
Niceville, FL 32578-2377
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
[[Page 25546]]
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John Giesey
MTC-00012172
From: Gary Stolp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Stolp
1218 Boston Street
Muskogee, OK 74401
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gary C Stolp
MTC-00012173
From: David M. Holly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David M. Holly
1211 Shady Lane
Tecumseh, MI 49286
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David M. Holly
MTC-00012174
From: patsy Rowzee
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patsy Rowzee
P.O. Box 323
Slagle, La 71475
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Patsy Rowzee
MTC-00012175
From: Betty Lloyd
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betty Lloyd
145 Valley Dr
Bridgeport, WV 26330
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Betty M Lloyd
MTC-00012176
From: Tracey Sigle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tracey Sigle
5303 Stockwell
Lincoln, NE 68506
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
[[Page 25547]]
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tracey Sigle
MTC-00012177
From: Kennyth Long
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kennyth Long
928 Dove Lane
Louisville, KY 40213-1322
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kennyth Long
MTC-00012178
From: Lynne Piper
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lynne Piper
8015 Chorale Ct
Houston, TX 77040
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lynne Piper
MTC-00012179
From: James Lucas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Lucas
11108 Church Rd.
Ellsworth, MI 49729
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
James Lucas
MTC-00012180
From: David HArold
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David HArold
PO box 3465
Mount Airy, nc 27030
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
DAvid Harold
MTC-00012181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:36pm
Subject: msft settlement
We common people depend on the developers to make things easy
for us. If there was not Windows, millions of people could never use
a computer. Apple was out there for yrs., with a graphical user
interface (GUI) but it took Windows which was fairly priced at about
80 dollars, to unlock the many millions of users nowadays-- IT IS
NOT
[[Page 25548]]
BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CHOICE------WE CHOSE Windows over IBM OS2, We
chose Windows over Linux, and over Apple, and especially over UNIX
and Xenix. Now there is a monopoly--if u were a physician, in 1990,
there was absoutely no softwaware other than UNIX/Xenix--and it cost
thousands of dollars,and could only run certain types of
applications . Please, please, please make this stupid lawsuit go
away!!!!!!!!!!
MTC-00012182
From: John Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Moore
22340 Bracketts Rd.,
Shorewood, MN 55331
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John W. Moore
MTC-00012183
From: Walter Kubli
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Kubli
300 Solari Rd.
Coos Bay, OR 97420
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Walter Kubli
MTC-00012184
From: Glenn Dobson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenn Dobson
2203 Palmersville Hwy-89
Dresden, TN 38225
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Glenn Dobson
MTC-00012185
From: R Keith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
R Keith
1146 Millers Mill Road
Stockbridge, GA 30281-4712
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Randy Keith
MTC-00012186
From: Jerry Franks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Franks
2353 Magnolia Dr
Little Elm, TX 75068
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and
[[Page 25549]]
losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jerry L Franks
MTC-00012187
From: Robert Bubala
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Bubala
1103 E. Miller St.
Griffith, IN 46319
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert Bubala
MTC-00012188
From: Edward Citak
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Citak
6216 Anaconda St.
Las Vegas, Nv 89108-3926
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Citak
MTC-00012189
From: Jack Russell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack Russell
143 Adobe Court
Weatherford, TX 76087
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Jack Russell
MTC-00012190
From: David Alvar
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Alvar
7727-236th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98036
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David M. Alvar
MTC-00012191
From: Sandi Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandi Johnson
3182 Quail Dr
Deltona, Fl 32738
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
[[Page 25550]]
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sandi Johnson
MTC-00012192
From: Gary Guptill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Guptill
P O Box 1
Springfield, SD 57062-0001
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gary Guptill
MTC-00012193
From: Allen Palmer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Allen Palmer
901 Easton Place
Dallas, TX 75218-2347
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Allen Palmer
MTC-00012194
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
The US and State governments continued action against Microsoft
is ridiculous and a total waste of our taxpayers money. Microsoft is
one of the greatest companies in the US and has produced fantastic
products that no other software company can. When we have so much
crime and criminal activities within companies (e.g. Enron) why are
we continuing to punish success. Stop prosecuting Microsoft now!
Nigel Lander Superintendent CIS SAP Project Manager
Samref Refinery, Yanbu, Saudi Arabia Phone: +966-4-396-4590
MTC-00012195
From: Ed Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ed Johnson
9541 Silver Spur Lane
Highlands Ranch, CO 80130
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ed Johnson
MTC-00012196
From: Kendall Funk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kendall Funk
200 Aspen St. Apt. #23
Clayton, NM 88415
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kendall Funk
MTC-00012197
From: Carol Rowe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Rowe
102 W Railroad Box 366
Lake Park, IA 51347-0366
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken
[[Page 25551]]
up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Carol Rowe
MTC-00012198
From: art selhorn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
art selhorn
3604 McCormick St . SE
olympia, wa 98501
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Art Selhorn
MTC-00012199
From: Kim Stowe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kim Stowe
5407 59th Place NE
Marysville, WA 98270-9016
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kim Stowe
MTC-00012200
From: Rex Shinholt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rex Shinholt
8885 E 400N
Van Buren, IN 46991
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
The Shinholts
MTC-00012201
From: Betty Grimm
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betty Grimm
922 Sugar Hollow Rd.
Apollo, Pa 15613-8007
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Betty R,Grimm
MTC-00012202
From: Sally Young
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sally Young
2700 Highway 54
Moreland, GA 30259
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting
[[Page 25552]]
valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sally Young
MTC-00012203
From: Roy Hamilton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roy Hamilton
230 SE 2nd Street
Gresham, OR 97080
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Roy Hamilton
MTC-00012204
From: Ira Paul
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ira Paul
18495 NW 78th Avenue
Hialeah, FL 33015-2704
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ira J. Paul
MTC-00012205
From: Michael Fry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Fry
229 Southport Dr
Newton, KS 67114-5429
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Michael Fry
MTC-00012206
From: John O'Brien
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John O'Brien
68 Lyford Drive
Tiburon, ca 94920-1715
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
J.J. O'Brien
MTC-00012207
From: Lawrence Gold
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Gold
880 Westmont Dr.
Chico, CA 95926-7761
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers.
[[Page 25553]]
With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
L. Gene Gold
MTC-00012208
From: Oliver Arnold
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Oliver Arnold
1252 N. Hazelton Drive
Chandler, AZ 85226-1333
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. The
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Perry Arnold
MTC-00012209
From: Tom Fisher
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Fisher
6931 Azalea lane
Dallas, TX 75230
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dr Tom Fisher MD BSEE
MTC-00012210
From: Harold Cantley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Cantley
513 Dumas st.
Watson, AR 71674
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Harold Cantley
MTC-00012211
From: Jim Zitek
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Zitek
5785 Hyland Courts Dr
Bloomington, MN 55447
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
James Zitek
MTC-00012212
From: James Huspek
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Huspek
PO Box 893
Jackson, WY 83001
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
[[Page 25554]]
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
James P. Huspek
MTC-00012213
From: Linda Fitzhugh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Fitzhugh
2207 Lytham Lane
Katy, TX 77450
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Linda Fitzhugh
MTC-00012214
From: Sharon Kellogg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Kellogg
RR 1 Box 774
Shinglehouse, PA 16748
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sharon Kellogg
MTC-00012215
From: Wanda Trapp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wanda Trapp
Rt. 4, Box 327
McAlester, OK 74501
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Wanda Trapp
MTC-00012216
From: Robert Owens
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Owens
408 West Jefferson
Cole Camp, MO 65325
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Owens
MTC-00012217
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pierce Mills
Rt. 3, Box 108-3
Lake City, FL 32025-9424
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers.
[[Page 25555]]
With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Pierce Mills
MTC-00012218
From: Lia Olivieri
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lia Olivieri
31 N. 3rd Street
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lia Olivieri
MTC-00012219
From: Steven Svec
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven Svec
PO Box 552
Chillicothe, MO 64601-0552
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Steven T. Svec
MTC-00012220
From: Stanley Burris
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stanley Burris
P.O. Box 368
Keystone Heights, FL 32656
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Stan Burris
MTC-00012221
From: Barbara King
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara King
7311 Oak Hill Dr.
Sylvania, OH 43560
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barbara King
MTC-00012222
From: Mikel Conner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mikel Conner
12616 Darryl Dr.
Buda, TX 78610-2572
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
[[Page 25556]]
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Mikel W. Conner
MTC-00012223
From: Joyce Oberly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Oberly
97 East Bethany Road
Womelsdorf, PA 19567
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Joyce M. Oberly
MTC-00012224
From: Dorothy Rush
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Rush
5965 Happy Pines Drive
Foresthill, CA 95631
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Rush
MTC-00012225
From: Richard Ellis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Ellis
1072 Hayes Ave
West Liberty, IA 52776
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Richard Ellis
MTC-00012226
From: Tom Hill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Hill
10839 Hortense Street
N. Hollywood, CA 91602
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Tom Hill, E.A.
MTC-00012227
From: Alfonse De Marco
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alfonse De Marco
3-7 Atlanta Court
Freehold, NJ 07728
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better
[[Page 25557]]
products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alfonse De Marco
MTC-00012228
From: Gregg E Finley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregg E Finley
1386 Rockdale St
Upland, CA 91784-7422
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gregg E Finley
MTC-00012229
From: Jay Pattiz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jay Pattiz
102 Cottonwood Close
Warrensburg, MO 64093
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jay Pattiz
MTC-00012230
From: Frank Murray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Murray
618 Avenue B
Trevose, PA 19053
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Frank Murray
MTC-00012231
From: Michael Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Moore
5309 Round Prairie
Shawnee, KS 66226
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Moore
MTC-00012232
From: Timothy Sawyer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Sawyer
P.O. Box 278
Hudgins, VA 23076
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into
[[Page 25558]]
the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Timothy P. Sawyer
MTC-00012233
From: Kenneth G. Loeb
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth G. Loeb
434 7th St
Jesup, IA 50648
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Microsoft Settlement: The
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kenneth G. Loeb
MTC-00012234
From: Lisa Cahill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lisa Cahill
1615 W. Blue Springs Ave.
Orange City, FL 32763
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Cahill
MTC-00012235
From: George Rush
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Rush
534 W. Chisholm St.
Sanford, NC 27330
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
George B. Rush
MTC-00012236
From: Clara Reese
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clara Reese
4006 132nd St. E.
Tacoma, WA 98446-1938
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Clara Reese
MTC-00012237
From: Maurice Knudsen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Maurice Knudsen
4428 Main Street
Elk Horn, IA 51531
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken
[[Page 25559]]
up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Maurice J. Knudsen
MTC-00012238
From: David Sheehan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Sheehan
1208 Wine Spring Lane
Baltimore, MD 21204
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David J Sheehan
MTC-00012239
From: Robert Hartsell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Hartsell
RR 2, Box 18
Lockwood, MO 65682-9601
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert N. Hartsell
MTC-00012240
From: John Beasley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Beasley
319 E. Thompson Ln.
Nashville, TN 37211-2663
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John W. Beasley
MTC-00012241
From: George Isaacs
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Isaacs
1858 Middlebury Drive
Aurora, IL 60504
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
George U Isaacs
MTC-00012242
From: Barry Stephens
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barry Stephens
37 Gray Lodge Rd
Kittery, ME 03904
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
[[Page 25560]]
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barry D. Stephens
MTC-00012243
From: martin guerra
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
martin guerra
1606 Arkansas Ave
Killeen, TX 76541
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
martin v. guerra
MTC-00012244
From: Fred Stacey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred Stacey
9309 Habersham Drive
Louisville, KY 40242-2309
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Fred Stacey
MTC-00012245
From: Donna Soares
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Soares
3704 Coco lane
North Highlands, Ca 95660
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Donna Soares
MTC-00012246
From: Glenna Potts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenna Potts
110 Marina Dr. #13
Needles, CA 92363-3717
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Glenna Potts
MTC-00012247
From: Cynthia Knight
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cynthia Knight
1982 McGirr Road
Ashton, IL 61006-9547
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the
[[Page 25561]]
courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Knight
MTC-00012248
From: Charles Rowe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Rowe
102 W Railroad Box 366
Lake Park, IA 51347-0366
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charles Rowe
MTC-00012249
From: Perry Staley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perry Staley
411 Orchard Street
Ironton, OH 45638-1166
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Perry L. Staley
MTC-00012250
From: George Kelder
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Kelder
4012 El Norte Rd.
Cameron Park, Ca 95682
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
George Kelder
MTC-00012251
From: Nile Gomez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nile Gomez
220 Meadow Lane, #D11
Secaucus, NJ 07094-4319
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Nile Gomez
MTC-00012252
From: Andy Hatle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andy Hatle
22827 Muscupiabe Dr.
San Bernardino, Ca 92405
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be
[[Page 25562]]
over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Andy Hatle
MTC-00012253
From: Joy Wilson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joy Wilson
3260 Keith Bridge Rd. #270
Cumming, GA 30041
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Joy Wilson
MTC-00012254
From: Terrence Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Terrence Moore
102 Recreation Dr.
Baden, Pa 15005
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Terrence M Moore
MTC-00012255
From: Lillie Price
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lillie Price
7815 CHIPPOKES ROAD
RICHMOND, VA 23881-9335
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Lil Price
MTC-00012256
From: JAMES HIBBS
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JAMES HIBBS
2504 south cheryl ct.
veradale, WA 99037
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
JAMES C HIBBS
MTC-00012257
From: Jennifer Terhune
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jennifer Terhune
3938 Lott Ave.
Corpus Christi, TX 78410-6033
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech
[[Page 25563]]
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Terhune
MTC-00012258
From: Jean Freeman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Freeman
413 Columbia Ave.
Lumberton, NC. 28358
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jean Freeman
MTC-00012259
From: Dwaine F. Keck
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dwaine F. Keck
321 Fox Rd.
Lexington, OH 44904-9337
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dwaine F. Keck
MTC-00012260
From: Kevin McElroy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin McElroy
24 Brushy Ridge Court
Plum, PA 15239-1140
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kevin McElroy
MTC-00012261
From: Christy Perez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christy Perez
3824 Jarrett Dr.
North Tonawanda, NY 14120
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Christy Perez
MTC-00012262
From: Betty Wyhowanec
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betty Wyhowanec
32 West Main Street
Vergennes, VT 05491
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a
[[Page 25564]]
serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Betty L. Wyhowanec
MTC-00012263
From: Charles Huelsmann
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Huelsmann
8321 N. Pocono Dr.
Citrus Springs, FL 34434
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Charles Huelsmann
MTC-00012264
From: Ed Schulz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ed Schulz
7643 Wachtel Way
Citrus Heights,, CA 95610
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Ed Schulz
MTC-00012265
From: John Mack, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mack, Jr.
5254 S. Riverview Circle
Homosassa , Fl 34448-3629
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John Mack Jr.
MTC-00012266
From: Sallie Pierdolla
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sallie Pierdolla
5232 FM 2538
Marion, , TX 78124
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Sallie Pierdolla, Texas, Bush Country
MTC-00012267
From: Robert P. Hanrahan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert P. Hanrahan
7268 Evans Mill Road
McLean, VA 22101
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
[[Page 25565]]
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Hanrahan
MTC-00012268
From: Joseph Wojtowicz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Wojtowicz
1390 Northfield Drive
Mineral Ridge, OH 44440-9420
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Joseph T. Wojtowicz
MTC-00012269
From: Gerald Kotyuk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerald Kotyuk
2300 Orleans Ave
Marietta, GA 30062-7214
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Gerald and Debbie Kotyuk
MTC-00012270
From: Alan De Ville
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan De Ville
7111 Tuckahoe Rd.
Williamson, NY 14589
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Alan De Ville
MTC-00012271
From: Rex Wilson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rex Wilson
912 Pavillion Street
Dallas, TX 75204-5513
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Rex Wilson, LCol, USMC Ret
MTC-00012272
From: Michael (Mick) Orton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael (Mick) Orton
1099 D Street, Suite 205
San Rafael, CA 94901
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
[[Page 25566]]
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Michael Orton
MTC-00012273
From: Scott Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Johnson
6003 Westbourne Place
Centreville, VA 20120-1865
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Scott Alan Johnson
MTC-00012274
From: Hal Scoggins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hal Scoggins
2807 Jackson St.
Houston, TX 77004-1242
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and
competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Hal Scoggins
MTC-00012275
From: David Jacobson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Jacobson
700 Norcova Dr.
Chesapeake, VA 23320
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David Jacobson
MTC-00012276
From: Edward Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Smith
130 Somerset Drive
Brooklyn, MI 49230
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Smith
MTC-00012277
From: Thomas Zamrok
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Zamrok
4805 Transit Road #1808
Depew, NY 14043-4904
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
[[Page 25567]]
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Zamrok
MTC-00012278
From: Jennifer Freeman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jennifer Freeman
226 Wilson Dr.
Summerville, SC 29483-3032
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jennifer M. Freeman
MTC-00012279
From: William Signorile
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Signorile
2360 Hemlock Farms
Hawley, Pa 18428
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kathy & Bill Signorile
MTC-00012280
From: Donald McGee
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald McGee
545 Hidden Creek Drive
Merritt Island, FL 32952
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Donald D. McGee
MTC-00012281
From: Frances Colvin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frances Colvin
323 Bailey Blvd
Tahlequah, OK 74464-9261
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Frances and Charles Colvin
MTC-00012282
From: C. Mack Powell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. Mack Powell
1437 N. Easrman Rd Apt B
Longview, TX 75601
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street.
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
C. Mack Powell